Re: [PERFORM] Postgres vs. DSpam

2004-11-29 Thread Jim C. Nasby
FWIW, those queries won't be able to use an index. A better WHERE clause would be: AND last_hit < CURRENT_DATE - 60 On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 02:37:12PM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 14:14 +0100, Evilio del Rio wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have installed the dspam filter > > (h

Re: [PERFORM] Postgres vs. DSpam

2004-11-25 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 14:37 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote: > In PostgreSQL the UPDATE will result > internally in a new record being written, with the old record being > marked as deleted. That old record won't be re-used until after a > VACUUM has run, and this means that the on-disk tables will h

Re: [PERFORM] Postgres vs. DSpam

2004-11-25 Thread Andrew McMillan
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 14:14 +0100, Evilio del Rio wrote: > Hi, > > I have installed the dspam filter > (http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam) on our mail server > (RedHat 7.3 Linux with sendmail 8.13 and procmail). I have ~300 users > with a quite low traffic of 4000 messages/day. So it's