I think my original post here might have gotten caught in a spamtrap, so
re-trying, I apologize if it ends
up being a duplicate.
I also forgot to mention that I'm on PG9.1.1 / RHEL 6.2 x64
I believe this is the reason for the behavior i was seeing in this post as well.
http://archives.postgresql
got it, thanks! without your help I really have no idea what should be fast
and what supposed to be slower.
I also find "select" involves a lot of writes:
iotop shows:
2789 be/4 postgres 0.00 B 57.34 M 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: goov
conta 192.168.1.129(27300) SELECT
I knew that selec
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Harold A. Giménez
wrote:
>
> > What is shared_buffers?
>
>
> 1600kB
That is really small, so the buffer flushing should not be a problem.
Unless you mean 1600MB.
> > > This is a rather small schema -- probably a half a dozen tables, and
> > > probably about a do
Hi,
I work with Daniel Farina and was the other engineer who "discovered" this,
once again. That is, I got bit by it and have been running TRUNCATE on my test
suites for years.
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Daniel Farina (mailt
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
> Nope. I don't. But an exact crossover is a level of precision I don't
> really need, because here are where things stand on a completely
> unremarkable test suite on the closest project to me that meets the
> "regular web-app" profile case
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Yan Chunlu wrote:
>> yes the system seems overloaded, I am dealing with a simple "INSERT" but not
>> sure if it is normal that it took more time than the explain estimated:
>
> The estimated cost is in arbitrary
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Yan Chunlu wrote:
> yes the system seems overloaded, I am dealing with a simple "INSERT" but not
> sure if it is normal that it took more time than the explain estimated:
The estimated cost is in arbitrary units, its purpose is to compare
different execution plans
On 07/12/2012 08:48 PM, Yan Chunlu wrote:
explain analyze INSERT INTO vote_content ( thing1_id, thing2_id, name,
date) VALUES (1,1, E'1', '2012-07-12T12:34:29.926863+00:00'::timestamptz)
QUERY PLAN
---
yes the system seems overloaded, I am dealing with a simple "INSERT" but
not sure if it is normal that it took more time than the explain estimated:
explain analyze INSERT INTO vote_content ( thing1_id, thing2_id, name,
date) VALUES (1,1, E'1', '2012-07-12T12:34:29.926863+00:00'::timestamptz)
On 07/12/2012 02:12 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/12/2012 06:51 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
15x slower. This is a Macbook Air with full disk encryption and SSD
disk with fsync off, e.g. a very typical developer configuration.
Don't use full
10 matches
Mail list logo