On Nov 28, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Gopal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is the query and the schema
...
select
sum(area(intersection(snaptogrid(chunkgeometry,0.0001),
GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332
50.820834307
"Gopal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the query and the schema
> ...
> select
> sum(area(intersection(snaptogrid(chunkgeometry,0.0001),
> GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332
> 50.8208343077265,-0.138958398039148 50.847800542
x27;, 'tbl_metadata_dataset', 'UNSPECIFIED',
'datasetid', 'datasetid');
CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2196038" AFTER UPDATE ON
tbl_metadata_chunks FROM tbl_metadata_dataset NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY
IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW
"Gopal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for your suggestions. Here's an output of the explain analyse.
What's the query exactly, and what are the schemas of the tables it
uses (psql \d descriptions would do)?
The actual runtime seems to be almost all spent in the hash aggregation
step:
>
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:22:45 +0100
Guido Neitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > effective_cache_size = 82728 # typically 8KB each
> Hmm. I don't know what the real effect of this might be as the doc
> states:
>
> "This parameter has no effect on the size of shared memory alloca
Hi,
Thanks for your suggestions. Here's an output of the explain analyse.
I'll change the shared_buffers and look at the behaviour again.
"Limit (cost=59.53..59.53 rows=1 width=28) (actual time=15.681..15.681
rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Sort (cost=59.53..59.53 rows=1 width=28) (actual
time=15.678..
Am 23.11.2006 um 23:37 schrieb Gopal:
hared_buffers = 2# min 16 or
max_connections*2, 8KB each
If this is not a copy & paste error, you should add the "s" at the
beginning of the line.
Also you might want to set this to a higher number. You are setting
about
Gopal wrote:
Functions : Simple coordinate reprojection and intersection query +
inner join of table1 and table2.
I think I have all the right indexes defined and indeed the performance
for queries under low loads is fast.
Can you do a EXPLAIN ANALYZE on your queries, and send the results ba
Hi all,
I have a postgres installation thats running under 70-80% CPU usage
while
an MSSQL7 installation did 'roughly' the same thing with 1-2% CPU load.
Here's the scenario,
300 queries/second
Server: Postgres 8.1.4 on win2k server
CPU: Dual Xeon 3.6 Ghz,
Memory: 4GB RAM
Disks: 3 x
