Re: [PERFORM] Query slowing down significantly??

2010-03-01 Thread Rainer Pruy
ess, thanks for your help in reminding me about obvious use of prepared statements. Rainer PS: I've just read the thread on "Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans". Very interesting. Will track this... Am 01.03.2010 19:15, wrote Tom Lane: > Rainer Pruy writes: >> The prepa

Re: [PERFORM] Query slowing down significantly??

2010-03-01 Thread Rainer Pruy
Filter: (((h.hierarchyname)::text = $2) AND (h.parentidx = $3)) Total runtime: 50.064 ms (7 rows) And that is quite a bad plan given the current distribution of values. Regards, Rainer Am 01.03.2010 17:15, schrieb Tom Lane: > Rainer Pruy writes: >> Normally the following Query behaves well: >

[PERFORM] Query slowing down significantly??

2010-03-01 Thread Rainer Pruy
Hi all, I'm quite puzzled by the following observation. The behaviour is observed on a production system (Linux, PG 8.3.5) and also on a test system (NetBSD 5.0.2, PG 8.4.2). Normally the following Query behaves well: select c.*, h.* from Context c, Context_Hierarchy h where c.Idx = h.ContextIdx

Re: [PERFORM] Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit

2008-03-10 Thread Rainer Pruy
f checkpoints are becoming too frequent - and like that > warning it could be configurable for big sites. If you think that's sane > I might have a go at it - though I mostly work in C++ so the result > probably won't be too pretty initially. > > -- > Craig Ringer > --