2010/4/26 Vlad Arkhipov arhi...@dc.baikal.ru:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Vlad Arkhipov arhi...@dc.baikal.ru
wrote:
I don't think this is just an issue with statistics, because the same
problem arises when I try executing a query like this:
I'm not sure how you think this proves
On Apr 22, 2:55 pm, robertmh...@gmail.com (Robert Haas) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Rick richard.bran...@ca.com wrote:
I have a DB with small and large tables that can go up to 15G.
For performance benefits, it appears that analyze has much less cost
than vacuum, but the same
Hello, everybody!
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.4.3, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400, 32-bit on
Windows XP SP3.
I use following data model for issue reproducing.
CREATE TABLE test1
(
id integer NOT NULL,
value double precision,
CONSTRAINT test1_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
CREATE INDEX
=?KOI8-R?B?68/Sz9TLz9cg4czFy9PBzsTS?= aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
So PostgreSQL planner can produce the plan I need but it doesn't produce
this plan when I specify particular second ordering column.
Well, no, because that plan wouldn't produce the specified ordering;
or at least it would be a
Rick wrote:
So, in a large table, the scale_factor is the dominant term. In a
small
table, the threshold is the dominant term. But both are taken into
account.
Correct.
The default values are set for small tables; it is not being run for
large tables.
So decrease the scale factor and
I have a 16G box and tmpfs is configured to use 8G for tmpfs .
Is a lot of memory being wasted that can be used for Postgres ? (I am
not seeing any performance issues, but I am not clear how Linux uses
the tmpfs and how Postgres would be affected by the reduction in
memory)
Sriram
--
Sent via
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a 16G box and tmpfs is configured to use 8G for tmpfs .
Is a lot of memory being wasted that can be used for Postgres ? (I am
not seeing any performance issues, but I am not clear how Linux uses
the tmpfs and how
