Re: [PERFORM] [GENERAL] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 18:41:25 -0500, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning, other > than I did notice that disk activity seemed to be getting a bit slower.

[PERFORM] Wrong plan for subSELECT with GROUP BY

Hi! See the next case, please! This is a theoretical CASE, which cause problems to me. Please, help! CREATE TABLE a ( id SERIAL,-- This is the PRIMARY KEY col TEXT ); CREATE TABLE b ( id SERIAL, -- This is the PRIMARY KEY a_id INT4, -- REFERENCE TO a.id value INT4, txt

Re: [PERFORM] Wrong plan for subSELECT with GROUP BY

Antal Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If this is a deficiency of the planner, I'd like to suggest this feature > into the planner. This really falls into the category of "you've got to be kidding". There's no way that it'd be reasonable for the planner to expend cycles on every query to look

[PERFORM] Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux and windows)

Hello, continuing the saga, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00558.php , my coleague created a test database with fake data (see below). The above archived message contains the the timings of firebird and postgresql. The weird problem are the 2 queries that firebird exe

Re: [PERFORM] slow variable against int??

Please cc the list so others can help. > From: Witold Strzelczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Friday 12 May 2006 00:04, you wrote: > > Yes, thanks but method is not a point. Actually, it is a point. Databases don't like doing things procedurally. Using a stored procedure to operate on a set

[PERFORM] stable function optimizations, revisited

I have recently been encountering a number of significant performance problems related to stable functions being called multiple times when I believe they could be called just once. Searching the ML archives, I see I'm not the first:

Re: [PERFORM] Wrong plan for subSELECT with GROUP BY

If you wrap the LIMIT select into a subquery in the FROM the planner might figure it out... SELECT ... FROM (SELECT blah FROM a LIMIT 10) LEFT JOIN ... Unlike some other databases that will spend huge amounts of time on trying to re-arrange queries and then hope they can effectively c

Re: [PERFORM] Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux and windows)

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:48:52PM -0200, andremachado wrote: > Hello, > continuing the saga, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00558.php , > my coleague created a test database with fake data (see below). > > The above archived message contains the the timings of fire

Re: [PERFORM] Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux and windows)

Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:48:52PM -0200, andremachado wrote: Hello, continuing the saga, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00558.php , my coleague created a test database with fake data (see below). The above archived message contains the the tim

Re: [PERFORM] Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux and windows)

"andremachado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > continuing the saga, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00558.php , > my coleague created a test database with fake data (see below). Thanks. I played around with this a bit, and got results like these: original query, 8.1 b