Can the CURSOR on JOIN affects so heavly the WHERE clause? I
suspect that - with the CURSOR - a sequential scan is performed
on the entire data set for each fetched record...
Any idea?
What does it say if you do EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT... both with and
without the cursor?
It may not
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:19:46PM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
I have a performace problem with the following query:
BEGIN;
DECLARE mycursor BINARY CURSOR FOR
SELECT
toponimo,
wpt
FROM wpt_comuni_view
WHERE (
wpt
Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
I get the results in about 108 seconds (8060 rows).
If I issue the SELECT alone (without the CURSOR) I get the
same results in less than 1 second.
By trial and error I discovered that adding an ORDER BY
toponimo clause to the SELECT, boosts the CURSOR performances
Hi,
These last two days, I have some troubles with a very strange phenomena:
I have a 400 Mb database and a stored procedure written in perl which
call 14 millions times spi_exec_query (thanks to Tom to fix the memory
leak ;-) ).
On my laptop whith Centrino 1.6 GHz, 512 Mb RAM,
- it is solved in
So, it seems that for my application (database in memory, 14 millions
of very small requests), Centrino (aka Pentium M) has a build-in
hardware to boost Postgres performance :-)
Any experience to confirm this fact ?
On my Centrino, Python flies. This might be due to the very large
Hi all,
I hope I am not asking too many questions. :)
I have been trying to solve a performance problem in my program for a
while now and, after getting an index to work which didn't speed things
up enough, I am stumped. I am hoping someone here might have come across
a similar issue and
On 7/7/05, Jean-Max Reymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On my laptop whith Centrino 1.6 GHz, 512 Mb RAM,
- it is solved in 1h50' for Linux 2.6
- it is solved in 1h37' for WXP Professionnal (troll on WXP better
tan Linux ;-) troll off)
[...]
I test CPU, memory performance on my laptop and it
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:48:06PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
This is why AMD stopped giving GHz ratings and instead uses numbers
which indicate how their processor relate to Pentium 4s. For instance
AMD Athlon XP 1700+ is running at 1.45 GHz, but competes with
Pentium 4 1.7 GHz.
Actually,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:49:05PM +0200, Jean-Max Reymond wrote:
Hi,
These last two days, I have some troubles with a very strange phenomena:
I have a 400 Mb database and a stored procedure written in perl which
call 14 millions times spi_exec_query (thanks to Tom to fix the memory
leak ;-)
On 7/7/05, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have the same locale settings on all of them?
interressant:
UNICODE on the fast laptop
SQL_ASCII on the slowest desktops.
is UNICODE database faster than SQL_ASCII ?
--
Jean-Max Reymond
CKR Solutions Open Source
Nice France
Jean-Max Reymond wrote:
On 7/7/05, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have the same locale settings on all of them?
interressant:
UNICODE on the fast laptop
SQL_ASCII on the slowest desktops.
is UNICODE database faster than SQL_ASCII ?
That's your encoding (character-set).
Thanks!
That took care of it.
On Jul 7, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bendik Rognlien Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am running few of these deletes (could become many more) inside a
transaction and each one takes allmost a second to complete.
Is it because of the foreign key
Hello,
I once upon a time worked in a company doing backup software and I
remember these problems, we had exactly the same !
The file tree was all into memory and everytime the user clicked on
something it haaad to update everything. Being C++ it was very fast, but
to backup a
PFC wrote:
Hello,
I once upon a time worked in a company doing backup software and I
remember these problems, we had exactly the same !
Prety neat. :)
The file tree was all into memory and everytime the user clicked on
something it haaad to update everything. Being C++ it
Madison,
The problem comes when the user toggles a directory branch's backup
flag (a simple check box beside the directory name). If it's a directory
near the end of a branch it is fast enough. If they toggle a single file
it is nearly instant. However if they toggle say the root
I'm putting together a road map on how our systems can scale as our load
increases. As part of this, I need to look into setting up some fast read
only mirrors of our database. We should have more than enough RAM to fit
everything into memory. I would like to find out if I could expect better
Stuart Bishop wrote:
I'm putting together a road map on how our systems can scale as our load
increases. As part of this, I need to look into setting up some fast read
only mirrors of our database. We should have more than enough RAM to fit
everything into memory. I would like to find out if I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Bishop) writes:
I'm putting together a road map on how our systems can scale as our
load increases. As part of this, I need to look into setting up some
fast read only mirrors of our database. We should have more than
enough RAM to fit everything into memory. I would
18 matches
Mail list logo
