Thanks for the recommendations. I wasn't familiar with those packages!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:46:32 +0100, "Dimitri Fontaine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 00:18, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> > But to get a good answer on if the difference is
> > significant enough to matter,
Thanks for the response! I know I have to benchmark them to get a real
answer. I am just looking to hear someone say "We benchmarked Linux vs.
Windows with similar configuration and hardware and experienced a 25%
performance boost in Linux." or "We benchmarked them and found no
significant diffe
"Jeremy Haile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the response! I know I have to benchmark them to get a real
> answer. I am just looking to hear someone say "We benchmarked Linux vs.
> Windows with similar configuration and hardware and experienced a 25%
> performance boost in Linux." or
I'm using 8.2. I don't know when I'll get a chance to run my own
benchmarks. (I don't currently have access to a Windows and Linux
server with similar hardware/configuration) But when/if I get a chance
to run them, I will post the results here.
Thanks for the feedback.
Jeremy Haile
On Thu, 04
I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
should be able to handle large amounts of space. The server is going
to be dedicated only for e-mail with 250GB of storage in Raid-5. I'd
like to know how Postgre
I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
should be able to handle large amounts of space. The server is going
to be dedicated only for e-mail with 250GB of storage in Raid-5. I'd
like to know how Postgre
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:00 -0300, Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
> I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
> index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
> should be able to handle large amounts of space. The server is going
> to be dedicated only f
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:00:05 -0300
"Charles A. Landemaine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
> index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
> should be able to handle large amounts of space. The server is going
>
Frank Wiles wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:00:05 -0300
> "Charles A. Landemaine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
>> index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
>> should be able to handle large amounts of s
Hello,
I am looking at upgrading from 8.1.2 to 8.2.0, and I've found a query which
runs a lot slower. Here is the query:
select type, currency_id, instrument_id, sum(amount) as total_amount from
om_transaction
where
strategy_id in
('BASKET1','BASKET2','BASKET3','BASKET4','BASKET5','BASKET6',
"Dave Dutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am looking at upgrading from 8.1.2 to 8.2.0, and I've found a query which
> runs a lot slower.
Um ... what indexes has this table got exactly? It's very unclear what
alternatives the planner is being faced with.
regards, tom
Dave,
Is it me or are the two examples you attached returning different row
counts?
That means either the source data is different, or your queries are.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
Dutcher
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:3
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>
> Um ... what indexes has this table got exactly? It's very
> unclear what
> alternatives the planner is being faced with.
>
Here is the table definition. Thanks.
The source data is a little different. The fast query was on our production
8.1 server, and the other was a test 8.2 server with day old data. The
production server has like 3.84 million rows vs 3.83 million rows in test,
so the statistics might be a little different, but I would figure the
compa
"Dave Dutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is the table definition. Thanks.
[ fools around with it for awhile... ] I think this is already fixed
for 8.2.1. Note the costs of the two related index scans:
8.2.0:
-> Bitmap Index Scan on om_transaction_om_transaction_index
(cost
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
| I'm building an e-mail service that has two requirements: It should
| index messages on the fly to have lightening search results, and it
| should be able to handle large amounts of space. The server is going
| to b
16 matches
Mail list logo
