On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ozer, Pam po...@automotive.com wrote:
There are 850,000 records in vehicleused. And the database is too big to be
kept in memory.
Ah. So in other words, you are retrieving about half the rows in that
table. For those kinds of queries, using the index tends
On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Ogden wrote:
On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
PostgreSQL's defaults are based on extremely small and some would say
(non production) size databases. As a matter of course I always
recommend bringing seq_page_cost and
The question is how can we make it faster.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:52 AM
To: Ozer, Pam
Cc: Craig James; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Using Between
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:04
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Ozer, Pam po...@automotive.com wrote:
The question is how can we make it faster.
If there's just one region ID for any given postal code, you might try
adding a column to vehicleused and storing the postal codes there.
You could possibly populate that column
Thank you. I will take a look at those suggestions.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:27 AM
To: Ozer, Pam
Cc: Craig James; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Using Between
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Gaetano Mendola mend...@gmail.com wrote:
I see your point, but some functions like: unique, count are not affected
by the order of values fed, and I don't think either that unique has to
give out the unique values in the same fed order.
Gee, I'd sure expect it
Original message
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:54:22 -0400
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Useless sort by
To: Gaetano Mendola mend...@gmail.com
Cc: Tom Lane
gnuo...@rcn.com wrote:
Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder. The RM has no need for order; it's set based. I've dabbled in PG for some time, and my sense is increasingly that PG developers are truly code oriented, not database (set) oriented.
I can't tell if you meant for this to
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
gnuo...@rcn.com wrote:
Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder. The RM has no need for order;
it's set based. I've dabbled in PG for some time, and my sense is
increasingly that PG developers are truly code
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM, gnuo...@rcn.com wrote:
Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder. The RM has no need for order;
it's set based. I've dabbled in PG for some time, and my sense is
increasingly that PG developers are truly code oriented, not database (set)
oriented.
I'm
10 matches
Mail list logo
