Hello.OS: Gentoo 2006.0 with gentoo's hardened kernelVersion: I haven't checked. Im guessing 8.0.8 (latest stable on all systems) or 8.1.4 which is the latest package.I'm still gonna try to run with smart array 5i. How can i find out that my performance with that is crappy? Without ripping down my
Run bonnie++ version 1.03 and report results here.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 03:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Claus Guttesen
Cc:
Okey!The thing is, im on vacation. So ill report in about 3 weeks time.. Sry guys.. :-)Kjell ToreOn 7/30/06, Luke Lonergan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Run bonnie++ version 1.03 and report results here.
- LukeSent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message-From:
I am testing a query what that has a sub-select. The query performance is very very poor as shown below due to the use of sequencial scans. The actual row count of both tables is also shown. It appears the row count shown by explain analyze does not match the actual count. Columns dstobj, srcobj
Hello,My name is Hristo Markov. I am software developer. I amdeveloping software systems (with C/C++ program language) that work on Windows operation system and uses ODBC driver and ACCESS database. I want to change database with PostgreSQL.The systems working without problems with
We are using a BI tool that generates some rather ugly queries. One of
the ugly queries is taking much longer to return thin I think it
should.
The select expression when run alone returns in 2 seconds with 35k rows
(http://www.bowmansystems.com/~richard/explain_select.analyze)
The where
See Query 200x slower on server [PART 1] before reading any
further
QUERY PLAN ON MY HOME SERVER
Sort (cost=1516.55..1516.59 rows=15 width=640) (actual
time=123.008..123.435 rows=1103 loops=1) Sort Key:
aanmaakdatum - Subquery Scan producttabel
(cost=1515.39..1516.26 rows=15 width=640)
