Oleg Lebedev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like in your case postgres uses an i_l_partkey index on lineitem
> table. I have a foreign key constraint defined between the lineitem and
> part table, but didn't create an special indexes. Here is my query plan:
The planner is obviously unhappy wi
Jenny,
> create index i_l_partkey on lineitem (l_partkey);
> I do not have any foreign key defined. Does the spec require foreign
> keys?
>
> When you create a foreign key reference, does PG create an index
> automatically?
No. A index is not required to enforce a foriegn key, and is sometimes
> Im running a Datawarehouse benchmark (APB-1) on PostgreSql. The objective is to
> choose which of the to main db (PostgreSQL, MySQL) is fastest. I've run into a
> small problem which I hope could be resolved here.
>
> I'm trying to speed up this query:
>
> select count(*) from actvars, prodleve
Hi guys
Im running a Datawarehouse benchmark (APB-1) on PostgreSql. The objective is to
choose which of the to main db (PostgreSQL, MySQL) is fastest. I've run into a
small problem which I hope could be resolved here.
I'm trying to speed up this query:
select count(*) from actvars, prodlevel wh
The index is created by:
create index i_l_partkey on lineitem (l_partkey);
I do not have any foreign key defined. Does the spec require foreign
keys?
When you create a foreign key reference, does PG create an index
automatically?
Can you try with the index?
Jenny
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 14:39, Ol
Seems like in your case postgres uses an i_l_partkey index on lineitem
table. I have a foreign key constraint defined between the lineitem and
part table, but didn't create an special indexes. Here is my query plan:
-> Aggregate (cost=1517604222.32..1517604222.32 rows=1 width=31)
->
I am running TPC-H with scale factor of 1 on RedHat7.2 with the kernel
2.5.74. Q17 can always finish in about 7 seconds on my system. The
execution plan is:
Aggregate (cost=780402.43..780402.43
Title: Message
I am running TPC-R
benchmarks with a scale factor of 1, which correspond to approximately 1 GB
database size on PostgreSQL 7.3.4 installed on CygWin on Windows XP. I dedicated
128 MB of shared memory to my postrges installation.
Most of the queries
were able to complete in a m
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 17:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In .conf file I have default checkpoints set to 3, but I noticed that in
> > my pg_xlog directory I always seem to have at least 8 log files. Since
> > this is more than the suggested 7, I'm wondering if thi
Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Vydefinition: SELECT p.userid, p.giver, p.first_name, p.last_name, p.email,
> p.default_language, p.created, p.created_by, w.course_id FROM (person p
> LEFT JOIN wiol w ON ((p.userid = w.userid)));
> explain analyze select p.pim_id, p.recipient, p
"Rigmor Ukuhe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What causes this behaviour? is there any workaround? Suggestions?
At some point the planner is going to decide that one seqscan is cheaper
than repeated indexscans. At some point it'll be right ... but in this
case it seems its relative cost estimate
Hi!
A performance question:
I have some tables:
Tabell "public.person"
Kolumn | Typ| Modifierare
--+--+---
userid | text | not null
giver| text
> There are about 2500 rows in that table.
>
> 1st query explain analyze: Seq Scan on PRIORITY_STATISTICS
> (cost=0.00..491.44 rows=127 width=12) (actual time=98.58..98.58 rows=0
> loops=1)
> Total runtime: 98.74 msec
>
> 2nd query explain analyze: NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Index Scan using PRIORITY
> > What causes this behaviour? is there any workaround? Suggestions?
> >
>
> How many rows are there in the table, and can you post the
> 'explain analyze' for both queries after doing a 'vacuum verbose analyze
> [tablename]'?
There are about 2500 rows in that table.
1st query explain analyze: S
14 matches
Mail list logo