[SQL] Memory And Performance

2001-04-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
> >The system that I'm developing, I have about 25000 (persons) x 8 >>(exams) >> x 15 (answers per exam) = 300 records to process and it is VERY SLOW. > >f you need to import large quantities of data, look at the copy >command, that tends to be faster. By way of example for the level of

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-05 Thread Tim Perdue
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:46:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Tim Perdue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire > > system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extremely large > > query that requires a lot of grou

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Tim Perdue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire > system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extremely large > query that requires a lot of grouping and sorting. What have you got the SortMem parameter (backen

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-05 Thread Tim Perdue
I thought this was an interesting thread because we're running into problems with IO under 7.1 during vacuum and a couple of scheduled aggregation jobs. Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extreme

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-04 Thread Richard Huxton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have noted that Postgresql don't make a good memory handle. I have > made the tables/procedure (in attached file) and run it as "select bench(10, > 5000)". This will give a 5 records inserts (5 x 1). (well, I run it > on a P200+64MB of RAM,

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have noted that Postgresql don't make a good memory handle. I have > made the tables/procedure (in attached file) and run it as "select bench(10, > 5000)". This will give a 5 records inserts (5 x 1). (well, I run it > on a P200+64MB of RAM, under Linux,

Re: [SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-04 Thread Edipo Elder Fernandes de Melo
Em 05 Apr 2001, Cedar Cox escreveu: >To this I say, remember that you are using a database! I would split this >into 3 tables (people, exams, answers). Then only the 'answers' table >would contain 3M records. Should be a bit faster. You don't want to have >to store the and wi

[SQL] Memory and performance

2001-04-04 Thread edipoelder
Hi all, I have noted that Postgresql don't make a good memory handle. I have made the tables/procedure (in attached file) and run it as "select bench(10, 5000)". This will give a 5 records inserts (5 x 1). (well, I run it on a P200+64MB of RAM, under Linux, and Postgres 7.0.2. In