Re: [PERFORM] shared buffers

2005-09-05 Thread Martin Nickel
ence. The reason I ask is because I occasionally see large-ish queries take forever (like cancel-after-12-hours forever) and wondered if this could result from shared_buffers being too large. Thanks for your (and anyone else's) help! Martin Nickel On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:08:21 +0800, Christop

[PERFORM] How can this be?

2005-09-19 Thread Martin Nickel
Hello all, Mostly Postgres makes sense to me. But now and then it does something that boggles my brain. Take the statements below. I have a table (agent) with 5300 rows. The primary key is agent_id. I can do SELECT agent_id FROM agent and it returns all PK values in less than half a second (d

[PERFORM] Sequential scan on FK join

2005-10-14 Thread Martin Nickel
ZE on lead. I don't understand why it isn't being used. Thanks for your help, Martin Nickel SELECT m.mailcode, l.lead_id FROM mailing m INNER JOIN lead l ON m.mailing_id = l.mailing_id WHERE (m.maildate >= '2005-7-01'::date AND m.maildate < '2005-8-01&#

Re: [PERFORM] Sequential scan on FK join

2005-10-17 Thread Martin Nickel
Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join From: Martin Nickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:53:35 -0500 Richard, here's the EXPLAIN ANALYZE. I see your point re: the 2.7M expected vs the 2 actual, but I've run ANA

Re: [PERFORM] Sequential scan on FK join

2005-10-17 Thread Martin Nickel
ata -page reads. Still, the 8-minute query time seems excessive. On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:45:38 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > Martin Nickel wrote: >> Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join From: Martin Nickel >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: pgsql.performan

Re: [PERFORM] Sequential scan on FK join

2005-10-21 Thread Martin Nickel
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:52:15 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > 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 c

Re: [PERFORM] Sequential scan on FK join

2005-10-21 Thread Martin Nickel
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:52:15 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > 3. Actually - are you happy that your general configuration is OK? We're running dual Opteron 244s with 4G of memory. The platform is Suse 9.3, 64 bit. The database is on a 3ware 9500S-8 sata raid controller configured raid 10 with 4

[PERFORM] What gets cached?

2005-10-21 Thread Martin Nickel
I was reading a comment in another posting and it started me thinking about this. Let's say I startup an Oracle server. All my queries are a little bit (sometimes a lot bit) slow until it gets its "normal" things in memory, then it's up to speed. The "normal" things would include some small look