Hi,I have the following quering plans:Seq Scan on ind_uni_100 (cost=0.00..27242.00 rows=100 width=104) (actual time=0.272..2444.667 rows=100 loops=1)Total runtime: 4229.449 ms
andBitmap Heap Scan on ind_uni_100 (cost=314.00..18181.00 rows=5 width=104) (actual time=74.106..585.368
My application has a function, call it foo(), that requires initialization from a table
of about 800 values. Rather than build these values into the C code, it seemed like a good idea to
put them on a PG table and create a second function, call it foo_init(), which is
called for each value,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:20AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
This works well, but it requires me to actually retrieve the function's
value 800 times.
Is this actually a problem?
So I thought I'd be clever:
select count(1) from (select foo_init(value) from foo_init_table order by
Craig A. James [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
select count(1) from (select foo_init(value) from foo_init_table order by
value_id) as foo;
And indeed, it count() returns 800, as expected. But my function foo_init()
never gets called!
Really? With the ORDER BY in there, it does get called,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:20AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
This doesn't seem right to me -- how can the optimizer possibly know that a
function doesn't have a side effect, as in my case? Functions could do all
sorts of things, such as logging activity, filling in other tables, etc,
Craig A. James [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This doesn't seem right to me -- how can the optimizer possibly know that a
function doesn't have a side effect, as in my case? Functions could do all
sorts of things, such as logging activity, filling in other tables, etc, etc.
The optimizer can know
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 11:42:20PM +0200, Mario Splivalo wrote:
Could you point out to some more detailed reading on why Xeons are
poorer choice than Opterons when used with PostgreSQL?
There are lots of theories, none conclusive, but the benchmarks certainly
point that way consistently. Read
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
I'm using httperf/autobench for
Mario Splivalo wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
I'm using
John Top-k apad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
from pg_stast_get_blocks_fetched i can see that both queries need almost
the
same number of disk fetches which is quite reasonable ( the index is
unclustered).
But as you can see there is a great variation between query
runtimes.Cansomeone explain
Where is the pgsql_tmp folder present ?. i am unable to see it in the data directory of postgresql.
~gourish
On 6/9/06, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:23:04PM +0200, Domenico - Sal. F.lli Riva wrote: Hello, During insert or update, potgresql write in pgsql_tmp
11 matches
Mail list logo
