Any issues, has it baked long enough, is it time for us 8.3 folks to deal
with the pain and upgrade?
Anymore updates regarding 8.4 and slon 1.2 as well, since I usually
build/upgrade both at the same time.
Thanks
Tory
Cédric Villemain writes:
>> If you want the latest and greatest, then you can use Debian testing.
>
> testing and sid are usually the same with a 15 days delay.
And receive no out-of-band security updates, so you keep the holes for
3 days when lucky, and 10 to 15 days otherwise, when choosing
tes
2009/10/12 S Arvind
> Thanks Grzegorz,
> But work memory is for each process (connection) rt? so if i keep
> more then 10MB will not affect the overall performance ?
>
it will. But the memory is only allocated when needed.
You can always set it before running that particular query, and th
Thanks Grzegorz,
But work memory is for each process (connection) rt? so if i keep
more then 10MB will not affect the overall performance ?
Arvind S
2009/10/12 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
> btw, what's the version of db ?
> what's the work_mem setting ?
>
> try setting work_mem to higher value
Sorry guys, i sent the required plan
QUERY
PLAN
--
Merge Left Join (cost=62422.81..67
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
>>> Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
> Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k wit
Le jeudi 08 octobre 2009 15:40:53, Matthew Wakeling a écrit :
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
> > Go for Debian:
> > * It is a free community, very active.
> > * It is guaranteed to be upgradable.
> > * Very easy to administrate via apt-get.
>
> http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20091
2009/10/12 Matthew Wakeling
> This is an EXPLAIN, not an EXPLAIN ANALYSE. If it was an EXPLAIN ANALYSE,
> it would show how much memory was used, and whether it was a disc sort or an
> in-memory sort. As it is only an EXPLAIN, the query hasn't actually been
> run, and we have no information about
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
try setting work_mem to higher value. As postgresql will fallback to disc
sorting if the
content doesn't fit in work_mem, which it probably doesn't (8.4+ show the
memory usage
for sorting, which your explain doesn't have).
For reference, here's
btw, what's the version of db ?
what's the work_mem setting ?
try setting work_mem to higher value. As postgresql will fallback to disc
sorting if the content doesn't fit in work_mem, which it probably doesn't
(8.4+ show the memory usage for sorting, which your explain doesn't have).
Thanks very much Matthew , its more then my expectation...
Without changing the query is there any way to optimize it, like by changing
the pg configuration for handling these kind queries?
-Arvind S
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
I can understand left join, actually can any one tell me why sort operation is
carried
out and wat Materialize means...
Can anyone explain me the mentioned plan with reason(s)?
Merge Left Join (cost=62451.86..67379.08 rows=286789 width=0)
Merge Cond
I can understand left join, actually can any one tell me why sort operation
is carried out and wat Materialize means...
Can anyone explain me the mentioned plan with reason(s)?
-Arvind S
2009/10/12 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:21 PM, S Arvind wrote:
>
>> In the below
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:21 PM, S Arvind wrote:
> In the below query both table has less than 1 million data. Can u tell me
> the reason of this plan?
> why its takin extensive cost , seq scan and sorting?? wat is Materialize?
>
> select 1 from service_detail
> left join non_service_detail on
In the below query both table has less than 1 million data. Can u tell me
the reason of this plan?
why its takin extensive cost , seq scan and sorting?? wat is Materialize?
select 1 from service_detail
left join non_service_detail on non_service_detail_service_id =
service_detail.service_detail_i
Merlin Moncure wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>>On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
>>>
Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k with 256MB
with write-back enabled. Could it be that its int
Hello
2009/10/12 Nimesh Satam :
> Hi,
>
> Can anybody highlight how to use unnest function from postgres 8.4 on
> multi-dimensional array?
>
> Below is the sample table structure:
>
> Table "public.multi_array_test"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> -+--+---
> id |
Hi,
Can anybody highlight how to use unnest function from postgres 8.4 on
multi-dimensional array?
Below is the sample table structure:
Table "public.multi_array_test"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-+--+---
id | integer |
user_id | bigint[] |
Sample data:
1
18 matches
Mail list logo
