Hi,
I have two table: customers and salesorders. salesorders have a foreign
key to the customer
If I run this query:
SELECT
salesOrders.objectid,
salesOrders.ordernumber,
salesOrders.orderdate,
customers.objectid,
customers.customernumber,
customers.lastname
FROM prototype.salesorders
Hi, Jérôme,
Jérôme BENOIS wrote:
max_connections = 512
Do you really have that much concurrent connections? Then you should
think about getting a larger machine, probably.
You will definitely want to play with commit_delay and commit_siblings
settings in that case, especially if you have
Hi, Francisco,
Francisco Reyes wrote:
I am looking to either improve the time of the vacuum or decrease it's
impact on the loads.
Are the variables:
#vacuum_cost_delay = 0 # 0-1000 milliseconds
#vacuum_cost_page_hit = 1 # 0-1 credits
Joost Kraaijeveld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why the difference and can I influence the result so that the first
query plan (which is the fastest) is actually used in both cases (I
would expect that the limit would be done after the sort?)?
It likes the second plan because 6694025.41/353
Hi,
Is there anyway we can optimize this sql ? it is doing full table
scan on listing and address table . Postgres version 8.0.2
Thanks!
Pallav.
explain analyze
select listing0_.listingid as col_0_0_,
getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) as col_1_0_
from
Greg, Josh,
Something I found out while doing this - lvm (and lvm2) slows the block
stream down dramatically. At first I was using it for convenience sake to
implement partitions on top of the md devices, but I found I was stuck at
about 700 MB/s. Removing lvm2 from the picture allowed me to
Pallav Kalva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
select listing0_.listingid as col_0_0_,
getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) as col_1_0_
from listing.listing listing0_
left outer join listing.address listingadd1_
on listing0_.fkbestaddressid=listingadd1_.addressid
left
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
but it seems there are only 7. Try increasing your statistics target
and re-analyzing.
Do you mean with increasing my statistics target changing the value of
default_statistics_target = 10 to a bigger number? If so, changing it
to 900 did not
Joost Kraaijeveld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you mean with increasing my statistics target changing the value of
default_statistics_target = 10 to a bigger number? If so, changing it
to 900 did not make any difference (PostgreSQL restarted, vacuumed
analysed etc).
Hm, did the 353 rowcount
On 15-9-2006 17:53 Tom Lane wrote:
If that WHERE logic is actually what you need, then getting this query
to run quickly seems pretty hopeless. The database must form the full
outer join result: it cannot discard any listing0_ rows, even if they
have lastupdate outside the given range, because
When we first started working with Solaris ZFS, we were getting about
400-600 MB/s, and after working with the Solaris Engineering team we
now get
rates approaching 2GB/s. The updates needed to Solaris are part of the
Solaris 10 U3 available in October (and already in Solaris Express, aka
Solaris
Greetings:
I'm running 8.1.4, and have noticed major differences in execution time
for plpgsql functions running queries that differ only in use of an
array such as:
slower_function( vals integer[] )
[query] WHERE id = ANY vals;
faster_function( vals integer[] )
vals_text
Benjamin Minshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What are the advantages or disadvantages of using arrays in this
situation? The = ANY array method makes plpgsql development cleaner,
but seems to really lack performance in certain cases.
In existing releases, the form with IN
Josh,
On 9/14/06 8:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've obtained 1,950 MB/s using Linux software RAID on SATA drives.
With what? :)
Sun X4500 (aka Thumper) running stock RedHat 4.3 (actually CentOS 4.3) with
XFS and the linux md driver without lvm. Here is a summary of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
