Oleg wrote:
Did you consider *decreasing* SIGLENINT ? Size of index will diminish
and performance could be increased. I use in current project SIGLENINT=15
The default value for SIGLENINT actually didn't work at all. It was only by
increasing it that I got any performance at all. An
Martin Nickel wrote:
When I turn of seqscan it does use the index - and it runs 20 to 30%
longer. Based on that, the planner is correctly choosing a sequential
scan - but that's just hard for me to comprehend. I'm joining on an int4
key, 2048 per index page - I guess that's a lot of reads -
reindex should be faster, since you're not dumping/reloading the table
contents on top of rebuilding the index, you're just rebuilding the
index.
Robert Treat
emdeon Practice Services
Alachua, Florida
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:32, Steve Poe wrote:
Would it not be faster to do a dump/reload
In the light of what you've explained below about nonremovable row
versions reported by vacuum, I wonder if I should worry about the
following type of report:
INFO: vacuuming public.some_table
INFO: some_table: removed 29598 row versions in 452 pages
DETAIL: CPU 0.01s/0.04u sec elapsed 18.77
First of all thanks all for the input.
I probably can't afford even the reindex till Christmas, when we have
about 2 weeks of company holiday... but I guess I'll have to do
something until Christmas.
The system should at least look like working all the time. I can have
downtime, but only for
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
INFO: vacuuming public.some_table
INFO: some_table: removed 29598 row versions in 452 pages
DETAIL: CPU 0.01s/0.04u sec elapsed 18.77 sec.
INFO: some_table: found 29598 removable, 39684 nonremovable row
versions in 851 pages
Hello there,
This is my first post in the list. I have a deep low-level background
on computer programming, but I am totally newbie to sql databases. I am
using postgres because of its commercial license.
My problem is with storing large values. I have a database that stores
large ammounts of
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:07:12PM +, Rodrigo Madera wrote:
1) Is there any way for me to send the binary field directly without needing
escape codes?
In 7.4 and later the client/server protocol supports binary data
transfer. If you're programming with libpq you can use PQexecParams()
to
[Please copy the mailing list on replies so others can participate
in and learn from the discussion.]
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:09:08PM +, Rodrigo Madera wrote:
What language and API are you using?
I'm using libpqxx. A nice STL-style library for C++ (I am 101% C++).
I've only dabbled
