Try this:
Rod, you improved my query last week (thank you very much) but I'm not sure
why but my performance is getting worse. I think I know what happened, when
I did my load testing I created data that all had the same date, so sorting
on the date was very fast. But now I've been running the
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 10:24, Michael Mattox wrote:
Try this:
Rod, you improved my query last week (thank you very much) but I'm not sure
why but my performance is getting worse. I think I know what happened, when
I did my load testing I created data that all had the same date, so sorting
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:46, Michael Mattox wrote:
Shared buffers is probably too high. How much memory in this machine?
Is there anything else running aside from PostgreSQL? What does top say
about cached / buffered data (number)
I was using the 25% of RAM guideline posted recently.
I'd be tempted to bump it up to 2.0 or 2.5 since data is on a single
disk (sequential scans *will* be faster than an index scan), but you
would need to run a benchmark on your disk to see if that is right.
I just set it to 2.5. What kind of benchmark can I run?
Every monitor is updated
for fixing my query.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rod Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Postgresql Performance
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to optimize monstrous query, sorts instead
Michael Mattox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's much slower but I appreciate you taking the time to try. I'm pretty
new to SQL so I must admin this query is very confusing for me. I'm using
Java Data Objects (JDO, an O/R mapping framework) but the implementation I'm
using (Kodo) isn't smart
