On Aug 11, 5:54 pm, Detlef Rudolph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Group,
I've tried the VACUUM ANALYSE, that doesn't help
much, but VACUUM FULL improves Performance down
from about 40 secs to 8. I think in future I would
use the reltuples value from pg_class for the table.
Thanks a lot for
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree. They are using LSI firmware now (and so is
everyone else). The servers are well built (highly subjective, I
admit) and configurable. I have had some bad experiences with IBM
gear (adaptec controller though), and
On 8/10/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
smiley2211 wrote:
Jeff,
You are CORRECT...my queries were going to /var/log/messages...had to get
the Linux Admin to grant me READ access to the file...
You may want to actually get
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:44 PM
To: Relyea, Mike
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help optimize view
Try increasing join_collapse_limit --- you have just enough
tables here that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
On 8/10/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
smiley2211 wrote:
Jeff,
You are CORRECT...my queries were going to /var/log/messages...had to get
the Linux Admin to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I recall correctly, it is because syslog is blocking.
Are you sure it isn't just that syslog fsyncs its log files after every log
message?
Nope I am not sure at all ;). Darcy
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I recall correctly, it is because syslog is blocking.
Are you sure it isn't just that syslog fsyncs its log files after every log
message? I don't think the individual syslogs are synchronous but if syslog
falls behind the buffer will fill and
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:35 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Relyea,
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running 8.2.4 on Windows XP with 1.5 GB memory.
shared_buffers = 12288
effective_cache_size = 1
For starters, you might want to adjust one or both of these. It looks to me
like
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:35 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.net, Relyea, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running 8.2.4 on Windows XP with 1.5 GB memory.
shared_buffers = 12288
effective_cache_size = 1
For starters, you might want to adjust one or both of these.
It looks
Hi All,
Tomas Kovarik and I have presented at PGCon 2007 in Ottawa
the ideas about other possible optimizer algorithms to be used
in PostgreSQL.
We are quite new to PostgreSQL project so it took us some
time to go through the sources end explore the possibilities
how things could be
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Relyea,
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've increased shared_buffers to 128MB, and restarted the server. My
total run time didn't really change.
Please forgive me if this guess doesn't help either, but could you try
eliminating
Relyea, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've increased shared_buffers to 128MB, and restarted the server. My
total run time didn't really change.
It doesn't look like you can hope for much in terms of improving the
plan. The bulk of the time is going into scanning ParameterValues and
Julius Stroffek wrote:
Hi All,
Tomas Kovarik and I have presented at PGCon 2007 in Ottawa
the ideas about other possible optimizer algorithms to be used
in PostgreSQL.
We are quite new to PostgreSQL project so it took us some
time to go through the sources end explore the possibilities
Hello!
Here's my test database:
# table
CREATE TABLE public.t
(
id integer NOT NULL,
a integer NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT pk_t PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
CREATE INDEX idx_t_a
ON public.t
USING btree
(a);
# function
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.f()
RETURNS integer AS
$BODY$BEGIN
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.net, Relyea, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've increased shared_buffers to 128MB, and restarted the
server. My
total run time didn't really change.
Please forgive me if this guess doesn't help either, but
could you
Philipp Specht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The biggest question here is: Why is the runtime of the query with
the stable function not near the runtime of the immutable function?
Stable functions don't get folded to constants.
It's definitely one query and the manual states that a stable
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julius Stroffek wrote:
There is a proposal attached to this mail about the interface
we would like to implement for switching between different
optimizers. Please review it and provide a feedback to us.
hmm - how does is that proposal different
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Relyea,
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re-writing the view like this maybe bought me something.
Tough to tell because I also increased some of the statistics.
I don't know whether it was the finer-grained statistics or the
Stefan,
thanks for pointing this out. I missed this change.
We would like to place the hooks to a different place in the planner and
we would like to just replace the non-deterministic algorithm searching
for the best order of joins and keep the rest of the planner untouched.
I am not quite
On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I'm often using writable views as interfaces to clients, so
they only see virtual objects and never have to cope with
the actual storage, ie. to give some client an totally
denormalized view of
Julius Stroffek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understood that if the user creates his own implementation of the
planner which can be stored in some external library, he have to provide
some C language function as a hook activator which will assign the
desired value to the planner_hook
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Grittner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Relyea,
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what Tom
says, it sounds like if I want the data returned faster I'm likely
Tom,
Also, while we might accept
a small hook-function patch for 8.3, there's zero chance of any of that
other stuff making it into this release cycle.
I don't think anyone was thinking about 8.3. This is pretty much 8.4
stuff; Julius is just raising it now becuase they don't want to go
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom,
Also, while we might accept
a small hook-function patch for 8.3, there's zero chance of any of that
other stuff making it into this release cycle.
I don't think anyone was thinking about 8.3. This is pretty much 8.4
stuff; Julius is just raising
On 13-Aug-07, at 9:50 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree. They are using LSI firmware now (and so is
everyone else). The servers are well built (highly subjective, I
admit) and configurable. I have had some bad experiences
25 matches
Mail list logo
