* David Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hmm, you said you don't experience this when executing the query
manually. What adapter are you using to access postgres from your
application? libpq, npgsql or something else?
huh, its a delphi application ... (I didnt code it).
And what is
* Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:17:47AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* David Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps if you are doing a lot of inserts and deletes, vacuuming every 6
minutes would be closer to your mark. Try vacuuming every 15
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:57:29AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:17:47AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* David Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps if you are doing a lot of inserts and deletes, vacuuming every
Hi all,
If you can just help my understanding the choice of the planner.
Here is the Query:
explain analyse SELECT IRNUM FROM IR
INNER JOIN IT ON IT.ITIRNUM = ANY ('{1000, 2000}') AND
IT.ITYPNUM = 'M' AND IR.IRYPNUM = IT.ITYPNUM AND IR.IRNUM = IT.ITIRNUM
WHERE IRNUM = ANY ('{1000,
I'm a bit surprised of that behavior thought, since it means that if we
delete a row from table A all tables (B,C,D) with FK pointing to this
table (A) must be scanned.
If there is no index on those tables it means we gone do all Sequantial
scans. Than can cause significant performance
