On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Sok Ann Yap sok...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, the overhead of spawning 44 extra queries means that it is
still better off for me to stick with the original query and tune
PostgreSQL to choose index scan.
Maybe,
Dear all
When database files are on a VxFS filesystem, performance can be
significantly improved by setting the VX_CONCURRENT cache advisory on
the file according to vxfs document,
my question is that have any tested by this?
#include sys/fs/vx_ioctl.h
ioctl(fd, VX_SETCACHE, VX_CONCURRENT);
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Sok Ann Yap wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Please show us your overall configuration and give a description
of the hardware (how many of what kind of cores, how much RAM,
what sort of storage system).
Here's
Just want to share the DBT(25) thing
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2011-04/msg00145.php
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=osdldbt-generalmax_rows=25style=nestedviewmonth=201104
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 28.04.2011 12:20, Rishabh Kumar Jain wrote:
How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement?
There is no difference in performance, if that's what you mean. (If not,
then pgsql-novice or pgsql-sql mailing list would've be more appropriate)
--
Heikki Linnakangas
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Sok Ann Yap sok...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the need to tune PostgreSQL properly for my use case.
What I am curious about is, for the data set I have, under what
circumstances (hardware/workload/cache status/etc) would a sequential
scan really be faster
On 04/27/2011 11:33 PM, HSIEN-WEN CHU wrote:
When database files are on a VxFS filesystem, performance can be
significantly improved by setting the VX_CONCURRENT cache advisory on
the file according to vxfs document,
That won't improve performance, and it's not safe either. VX_CONCURRENT
