On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tommi K wrote:
> Hello,
> thanks for the response. I did not get the response to my email even
> though I am subscribed to the pgsql-performance mail list. Let's hope that
> I get the next one :)
>
> Increasing work_mem did not have great impact on the performance
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Craig James wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jim Nasby
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/16 3:26 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
>>
>>> Is there way to keep query time constant as the database size grows.
>>>
>>
>> No. More data == more time. Unless you find a way to break th
Craig James writes:
> Straight hash-table indexes (which Postgres doesn't use) have O(1) access
> time. The amount of data has no effect on the access time.
This is wishful thinking --- once you have enough data, O(1) goes out the
window. For example, a hash index is certainly not going to conti
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 8/26/16 3:26 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
>
>> Is there way to keep query time constant as the database size grows.
>>
>
> No. More data == more time. Unless you find a way to break the laws of
> physics.
>
Straight hash-table indexes (which Postgr
