Hi,
I changed the date comparison to be based on year alone:
extract(YEAR FROM sc.taken_start) >= 1900 AND
extract(YEAR FROM sc.taken_end) <= 2009 AND
The indexes are now always used; if someone wants to explain why using the
numbers works (a constant) but using a date (another constant?
EXPLAIN ANALYSE on smaller query:
"Seq Scan on teksty (cost=0.00..1353.50 rows=1 width=695) (actual
time=0.220..12.354 rows=368 loops=1)"
" Filter: (id = 1)"
"Total runtime: 12.488 ms"
Memory config:
# - Memory -
shared_buffers = 24MB
temp_buffers = 8MB
max_prepared_transactions = 5
work_mem
Option 2:
App Server and Postgres: Dual Xeon 5520 quad core with 12GB ram and
2x 146GB 15k RPM SAS (RAID1) disks
you didnt mention your dataset size, but i the second option would
be preferrable in most situations since it gives more of the os memory
for disc caching. 12 gb vs 4 gb for
Hi group,
I could really use your help with this one. I don't have all the
details right now (I can provide more descriptions tomorrow and logs
if needed), but maybe this will be enough:
I have written a PG (8.3.8) module, which uses Flex Lexical Analyser.
It takes text from database field and fi
Hi,
I wrote a query (see below) that extracts climate data from weather stations
within a given radius of a city using the dates for which those weather
stations actually have data. The query uses the measurement table's only
index:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX measurement_001_stc_idx
ON climate.measure
Hello,
I work for a web app to send email newsletters, and I have one question
about postgres' performance in two different setups. Actually we have one
4GB Ram VPS running our app server (it's a rails app under nginx and thin)
and a 4GB Ram VPS running the database (18GB). We want to migrate to b
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Paul McGarry wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm after a little bit of advice on the shared_buffers setting (I have
> read the various docs on/linked from the performance tuning wiki page,
> some very helpful stuff there so thanks to those people).
>
> I am setting up a 64b
On May 24, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Konrad Garus wrote:
> Do shared_buffers duplicate contents of OS page cache? If so, how do I
> know if 25% RAM is the right value for me? Actually it would not seem
> to be true - the less redundancy the better.
You can look into the pg_buffercache contrib module.
>
2010/3/11 Paul McGarry :
> I'm basically wondering how the postgresql cache (ie shared_buffers)
> and the OS page_cache interact. The general advice seems to be to
> assign 1/4 of RAM to shared buffers.
>
> I don't have a good knowledge of the internals but I'm wondering if
> this will effectively
