Hello,
I have around 1000 schema in database, Each schema having similar data
structure with different data
Each schema has few tables which never updates (Read only table) and
other tables rewrites almost everyday so I prefer to TRUNCATE those
tables and restores with new data
Now facing
Hi, all.
this is an obligation from the past:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-05/msg00017.php
the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that is,
BTW even better than mssql.
the ultimate solution for that problem was to NOT to do ON COMMIT DELETE
ROWS
Hi all,
as far as i looked around about the new feature: index-only scan, i guess
this feature will not include the option such as ms-sql INCLUDE.
well, i have a table with columns: a,b,c
i query the table like this: select a,c from table where a=x and b=y
as for now, i have unique-index on
I am running the following query:
SELECT res1.x, res1.y, res1.z
FROM test t
JOIN residue_atom_coords res1 ON
t.struct_id_1 = res1.struct_id AND
res1.atomno IN (1,2,3,4) AND
(res1.seqpos BETWEEN t.pair_1_helix_1_begin AND
t.pair_1_helix_1_end)
Given a baseline postgresql.conf config and a couple DL580 40 core/256GB memory
I noticed a large over head for pgbouncer, has anyone seen this before?
$ pgbench -h `hostname -i` -j 32 -p 4320 -U asgprod -s 500 -c 32 -S -T 60
pgbench_500
Scale option ignored, using pgbench_branches table
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Tim Jacobs tjaco...@email.unc.edu wrote:
The nested loop join performs very quickly, whereas the hash join is
incredibly slow. If I disable the hash join temporarily then a nested loop
join is used in the second case and is the query runs much more quickly.
On 6/20/2012 1:01 AM, Eyal Wilde wrote:
Hi, all.
this is an obligation from the past:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-05/msg00017.php
the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that
is, BTW even better than mssql.
the ultimate solution for that
On 06/20/2012 12:46 PM, Eyal Wilde wrote:
Hi all,
as far as i looked around about the new feature: index-only scan, i
guess this feature will not include the option such as ms-sql INCLUDE.
For those of us who don't know MS-SQL, can you give a quick explanation
of what the INCLUDE keyword in
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
this is an obligation from the past:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-05/msg00017.php
the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that
is, BTW even better than mssql.
the
On 06/19/2012 09:00 AM, Strange, John W wrote:
Given a baseline postgresql.conf config and a couple DL580 40 core/256GB memory
I noticed a large over head for pgbouncer, has anyone seen this before?
$ pgbench -h `hostname -i` -j 32 -p 4320 -U asgprod -s 500 -c 32 -S -T 60
pgbench_500
Scale
On 06/20/2012 09:11 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
For those of us who don't know MS-SQL, can you give a quick
explanation of what the INCLUDE keyword in an index definition is
expected to do, or some documentation references?
He's talking about what MS SQL Server commonly calls a covering index.
I need to move a postgres 9.0 database -- with tables, indexes, and wals
associated with 16 tablespaces on 12 logical drives -- to an existing raid 10
drive in another volume on the same server. Once I get the data off the initial
12 drives they will be reconfigured, at which point I'll need to
On 6/20/12 3:27 PM, Midge Brown wrote:
I need to move a postgres 9.0 database -- with tables, indexes, and wals
associated with 16 tablespaces on 12 logical drives -- to an existing raid 10
drive in another volume on the same server. Once I get the data off the
initial 12 drives they will
On 06/20/2012 11:32 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
On 06/20/2012 09:11 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
For those of us who don't know MS-SQL, can you give a quick
explanation of what the INCLUDE keyword in an index definition is
expected to do, or some documentation references?
He's talking about what MS
14 matches
Mail list logo
