Rhett Garber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hash Join (cost=5.96..7.04 rows=1 width=14) (actual
> time=10.591..10.609 rows=1 loops=1)
>Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".obj2)
>-> Seq Scan on rtmessagestate (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=5 width=14)
> (actual time=0.011..0.022 rows=5 loops=1)
>-
On 8/5/05, Havasvölgyi Ottó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please post the explain analyze for both queries. From that we can see the
> predicted and the actual costs of them.
> select rtmessagestate.* from rtmessagestate, connection where
> connection_registry_id = 40105 and obj1 = 73582 and obj2
Rhett,
Please post the explain analyze for both queries. From that we can see the
predicted and the actual costs of them.
Regards,
Otto
- Original Message -
From: "Rhett Garber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: [PERFORM] Why hash join instead
I've got similiar queries that I think should be evaluated (as
displayed through 'explain') the same, but don't.
Hopefully this is the rigth place to send such a question and one of
you can help explain this to me.
The Tables:
Connection - 1.2 million entries, about 60 megs, 3 integer fields
t
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dirk_Lutzeb=E4ck?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here are the number of queries which the server has finished in a fix
> period of time.
Uh, you never actually supplied any numbers (or much of any other
specifics about what was tested, either).
My first reaction is "don't vary mor
Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:11:31PM +0200, Dirk Lutzebäck wrote:
I will compile the latest PostgreSQL 8.1 snapshot for 32bit to
evaluate the new shared buffer code from Tom.
I think, the 64bit is slow because my queries are CPU intensive.
Have you actually tried it or
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:11:31PM +0200, Dirk Lutzebäck wrote:
I will compile the latest PostgreSQL 8.1 snapshot for 32bit to evaluate
the new shared buffer code from Tom.
I think, the 64bit is slow because my queries are CPU intensive.
Have you actually tried it or are you guessing? If you'r
[[I'm
posting this on behalf of my co-worker who cannot post to this list at
the moment]]
Hi,
I had installed PostgreSQL on a 4-way AMD Opteron 875 (dual core) and
the performance isn't on the expected level.
Details:
The "old" server is a 4-way XEON MP 3.0 GHz with 4MB L3 cache, 32 GB
RA
