Valerie Schneider DSI/DEV wrote:
Hi,
I have some problem of performance on a PG database, and I don't
know how to improve. I Have two questions : one about the storage
of data, one about tuning queries. If possible !
My job is to compare Oracle and Postgres. All our operational databases
have been
You often make sums. Why not use separate tables to cache these sums by
month, by poste, by whatever ?
Rule on insert on the big table updates the cache tables.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose
not so bad for oracle. What about for PG ? How data is stored
I agree with the datatype issue. Smallint, bigint, integer... add a
constraint...
Also the way order of the records in the database is very important. As
you seem to have a very large static population in your table, you should
]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning queries on large database
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Mailing-List: pgsql-perf
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 08:44, Valerie Schneider DSI/DEV wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some problem of performance on a PG database, and I don't
> know how to improve. I Have two questions : one about the storage
> of data, one about tuning queries. If possible !
>
> My job is to compare Oracle and Postg
> sort_mem = 5
That is way, way too large. Try more like 5000 or lower.
> num_poste | numeric(9,0)| not null
For starters numerics are really, really slow compared to integers. Why
aren't you using an integer for this field since youhave '0' decimal
places.
> sche
