* Alan Cunnane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Can you see anymore clues in here which would help as the performance still > really needs to be a lot better than this? I really appreciate your help
What is the 'work_mem' set to here? Have you tried playing with it
(increasing it)? It might help the planner out if it could use a bit
more memory.
Thanks,
Stephen
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: PostGIS Users Discussion <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 1:33:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [postgis-users] Massive Performance Issues
>
> * Alan Cunnane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi Steven as requested here are the table definitions and constraints:
> [...]
> > Perhaps you can decipher what would be causing such a large performace
> > problem from these constraints? Any help would be much appreciated as im at
> > the end of my tether at this stage and really dont know what to do
>
> Have you tried the bounding box addition I suggested? Also, what about
> the whole explain analyze of the query? Perferrably with the bounding
> box included?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
> now.
> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
