Hi Tom,
it would be really hard for us to change the underlying tables and the executed
query. Is there any other way for us to avoid the really bad query (e.g. a hint
for the planner)?
Regards,
Robert Hell
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Gesendet:
Bill Kirtley writes:
> On the main production database, a select looking at the email column
> winds up scanning the whole table:
> ... where on that same database selecting on the 'key' column uses the
> index as expected:
That's just bizarre. I assume that setting enable_seqscan = off
does
Jared Beck writes:
> Hello postgres wizards,
> We recently upgraded from 8.1.5 to 8.4
> We have a query (slow_query.sql) which took about 9s on 8.1.5
> On 8.4, the same query takes 17.7 minutes.
One thing that is hobbling the performane on 8.4 is that you have
work_mem set to only 1MB (you had it
Hello-
I've discovered that lookups on one column in one instance of my
database performs badly.
The table has columns 'email' and 'key', both of type 'character
varying(255)', and both with btree indices. The table has ~ 500k
rows, and no rows of either column are blank or null, and all
Hello postgres wizards,
We recently upgraded from 8.1.5 to 8.4
We have a query (slow_query.sql) which took about 9s on 8.1.5
On 8.4, the same query takes 17.7 minutes.
The code which generated this query is written to support the
calculation of arbitrary arithmetic expressions across "variables"
Jared --
Forgive the top-posting -- a challenged reader.
I see this in the 8.4 analyze:
Merge Cond: (cli.clientid = dv118488y0.clientid)
Join Filter: ((dv118488y0.variableid = v118488y0.variableid) AND
(dv118488y0.cycleid = c1.cycleid) AND (dv118488y0.unitid = u.uni
Hello postgres wizards,
We recently upgraded from 8.1.5 to 8.4
We have a query (slow_query.sql) which took about 9s on 8.1.5
On 8.4, the same query takes 17.7 minutes.
The code which generated this query is written to support the
calculation of arbitrary arithmetic expressions across "variables"
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Shiva Raman wrote:
First let me say that upgrading to a later version is likely going to
help as much as anything else you're likely to pick up from this
discussion. Not that this discussion isn't worthwhile, it is.
> If you run a 'ps ax|grep post' do you see a
Fernando Hevia wrote:
User Access
Total Number of Users is 500
Maximum number of Concurrent users will be 500 during peak time
Off Peak time the maximum number of concurrent user will be
around 150 to 200.
>>> A connection pooler like pgpool or pgbouncer
>>>
>>> User Access
>>> Total Number of Users is 500
>>> Maximum number of Concurrent users will be 500 during peak time
>>> Off Peak time the maximum number of concurrent user will be
>>> around 150 to 200.
>>>
>>
>>A connection pooler like pgpool or pgbouncer would considerably reduce the
>>burde
Shiva Raman wrote:
/If you run a 'ps ax|grep post' do you see anything that says 'idle in
transaction'? (I hope that old of version will show it. my processes
show up as postgres not postmaster)/
Lots of requests shows as 'idle in transaction'.
Eww. I think that's bad. A connection that
Hi
Thanks for your mail.
*Some quick advice:*
*
*
*>*
*> clusternode2:~ # rpm -qa | grep postgres*
*> postgresql-devel-8.1.9-1.2*
*> postgresql-8.1.9-1.2*
*> postgresql-docs-8.1.9-1.2*
*> postgresql-server-8.1.9-1.2*
*> postgresql-libs-64bit-8.1.9-1.2*
*> postgresql-libs-8.1.9-1.2*
*> p
Hi
Thanks a lot for the reply.
*I see you are on a pretty old version of pg. Are you vacuuming regularly?*
Yes, Vaccuuming is done every day morning at 06 am
It is running perfectly fine.
*
*
*If you run a 'ps ax|grep post' do you see anything that says 'idle in
transaction'? (I hope t
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:19, Alan McKay wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That's not true at all.
>>
>> If you have many relations in your cluster that have at some point been
>> touched, the starts collector can create a *significant* load on the I/o
>> system
14 matches
Mail list logo
