On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
This causes massive file-system activity and flushes all files that the
kernel has cached. If you run this between each Postgres test (let it run
for a couple minutes), it gives you an apples-to-apples comparison between
Michael Stone wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
This causes massive file-system activity and flushes all files that
the kernel has cached. If you run this between each Postgres test
(let it run for a couple minutes), it gives you an apples-to-apples
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been testing the performance of PostgreSQL using the simple tool
found at http://benchw.sourceforge.net however I have found that all the
queries it run execute with sequential scans. The website where the code
runs has examples of the execution plan using
The real issue here is caching across successive queries, an effect that
Postgres doesn't deal with very well at the moment. If you run these
queries from a standing start (freshly booted machine) you'll likely
find that the indexscan plan is indeed slower than the seqscan/hash
plan, just like
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been testing the performance of PostgreSQL using the simple tool
found at http://benchw.sourceforge.net however I have found that all the
queries it run execute with sequential scans. The website where the code
runs has examples of the execution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been testing the performance of PostgreSQL using the simple tool
found at _http://benchw.sourceforge.net_ however I have found that all
the queries it run execute with sequential scans. The website where the
code runs has examples of the execution plan using
Title: Forcing using index instead of sequential scan?
I have been testing the performance of PostgreSQL using the simple tool found at http://benchw.sourceforge.net however I have found that all the queries it run execute with sequential scans. The website where the code runs has examples
: [PERFORM] Forcing using index instead of sequential scan?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the best way to force the use of indexes in these queries?
Well, the brute-force method is to use SET enable_seqscan TO off, but if
you want to get to the bottom of this, you should look at or post
The tables have all been analysed.
I set the work_mem to 50 and it still doesn't use the index :-(
Regards
Robin
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 July 2006 12:54
To: Smith,R,Robin,XJE4JA C
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Forcing using index instead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the best way to force the use of indexes in these queries?
Well, the brute-force method is to use SET enable_seqscan TO off, but if
you want to get to the bottom of this, you should look at or post the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE output of the offending queries.
--
Peter
10 matches
Mail list logo
