and
capacity or capacity and prices
I have no experience working with arrays on a table. Is it fast?
Witch one do u think will have better performance?
Any good idea?
I hope this is enouth information.
Thanks in advance,
Ruben Rubio Rey
---(end of broadcast
Hi,
I think im specting problems with a 7.4.8 postgres database.
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms in normal circunstances.
Why sometimes its takes too
Rubio
Rey
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:06 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] Query time
Hi,
I think im specting problems with a 7.4.8 postgres database.
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0100, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms in normal circunstances
Richard Huxton wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
I think im specting problems with a 7.4.8 postgres database.
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms
Hi,
I have a select like
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])5000
AND array[20]0
AND array[21]0
...
AND array[50]0
AND array[51])0
Any ideas to make this query faster?
---(end
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:41:50PM +0100, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
I have a select like
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])5000
http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/109
Tom Lane wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])5000
AND array[20]0
AND array[21]0
...
AND array[50]0
AND array[51])0
Any ideas to make this query
Greg Quinn wrote:
The query is,
select * from users
which returns 4 varchar fields, there is no where clause
Yes, I am running the default postgres config. Basically I have been a
MySQL user and thought I would like to check out PostGreSql. So I did
a quick performance test. The
I think that the problem is the GROUP BY (datetime) that is
date_trunc('hour'::text, i.entry_time)
You should create an indexe with this expression (if its possible).
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/indexes-expressional.html
If is not possible, I would create a column with value
Did you tried to index the expression?
Did it work?
Doron Baranes wrote:
Ok. But that means I need a trigger on the original column to update the
new column on each insert/update and that overhead.
-Original Message-
From: Ruben Rubio Rey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday
Hi,
I have a web page, that executes several SQLs.
So, I would like to know witch one of those SQLs consumes more CPU.
For example,
I have SQL1 that is executed in 1.2 secs and a SQL2 that is executed in
200 ms.
But SQL2 is executed 25 times and SQL1 is executed 1 time, so really
SQL2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 May 2006, at 16:21, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
I have a web page, that executes several SQLs.
So, I would like to know witch one of those SQLs consumes more CPU.
For example,
I have SQL1 that is executed in 1.2 secs and a SQL2 that is executed
in 200 ms
Hi,
Im having a problem with postgres 8.1.3 on a Fedora Core 3 (kernel
2.6.9-1.667smp)
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours)
In the testing server, an sql sentence takes arround 1 sec.
In
Gábriel Ákos wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
Im having a problem with postgres 8.1.3 on a Fedora Core 3 (kernel
2.6.9-1.667smp)
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours)
In the testing server
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/12/06, Ruben Rubio Rey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two similar servers, one in production and another
for testing purposes. In testing server ~1sec ... in
production ~50 secs
What ver of PostgreSQL?
Version 8.1.3
Same ver on both systems?
Yes
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:58:49PM +0200, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
$DIREC/vacuumdb -f -v --analyze vacadb 21 | $LOGBIN
$DIRLOGS/%Y-%m-%d_limpieza.log
echo reindex database vacadb; | $DIREC/psql vacadb 21 | $LOGBIN
$DIRLOGS/%Y-%m-%d_limpieza.log
date | $LOGBIN $DIRLOGS/%Y
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:05:06AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:38:57PM +0200, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours
Tonight database has been vacumm full and reindex (all nights database
do it)
Now its working fine. Speed is as spected. I ll be watching that sql ...
Maybe the problem exists when database is busy, or maybe its solved ...
---(end of
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 13.06.2006, at 8:44 Uhr, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Tonight database has been vacumm full and reindex (all nights
database do it)
Now its working fine. Speed is as spected. I ll be watching that sql
...
Maybe the problem exists when database is busy, or maybe its
Seems autovacumm is working fine. Logs are reporting that is being useful.
But server load is high. Is out there any way to stop autovacumm if
server load is very high?
Thanks everyone!!!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our
21 matches
Mail list logo
