Oh, and I forgot to mention: it's highly compressed (bzip2 -9) and is
109M.
Scott
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 11:01, Scott Cain wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Good idea, since I may not get around to profiling it this week. I
> created a dump of the data set I was working with. It is av
r!
Thanks again,
Scott
--
----
Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't
set available (external-storage
> case) that we can play with?
>
> Joe
--
----
Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 11:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At least this appears to work and is much faster, completing substring
> > operations like above in about 0.27 secs (that's about two orders of
> > magnitude improvement!)
&g
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 11:55, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Monday 04 August 2003 16:25, Scott Cain wrote:
> [snip]
> > [snip]
>
> You might want some checks to make sure that smin < smax, otherwise looks like
> it does the job in a good clean fashion.
Good point--smin <
erations like above in about 0.27 secs (that's about two orders of
magnitude improvement!)
Thanks,
Scott
--
Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087
Cold Spring
So it is possible that if I had a fast scsi drive, the performance might
be better?
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 16:31, Joe Conway wrote:
> Scott Cain wrote:
> > Index Scan using feature_pkey on feature (cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1
> > width=153) (actual time=954.13..954.14 rows=1 loops=
orrow with another set of
results.
Also, the perl script that did several queries used lengths of 5000,
10,000 and 40,000 because those are the typical lengths I would use
(occasionally shorter).
Thanks,
Scott
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 16:49, Joe Conway wrote:
> Scott Cain wrote:
> > So it is pos
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 16:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> (BTW, if you are using a multibyte database encoding, then that's your
> >> problem right there --- the optimization is practically useless unless
> >> character
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > explain analyze select substring(residues from 100 for 2)
> > from feature where feature_id=1;
>
> > where feature is a table with ~3 million rows, and residues is a
7.3 with 512M RAM.
Thanks,
Scott
--
----
Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
---(end of broadcas
he index
scan on feature_pkey using information from the index scan on
featureloc_src_6 to limit the number of rows to get from feature?
Scott
--
--------
Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMOD Co
ost=0.00..134601.43 rows=48347 width=40) (actual time=69.98..62978.27 rows=13825
loops=1)
Filter: (type_id = 219)
Total runtime: 63632.28 msec
(12 rows)
Any other ideas?
Thanks,
Scott
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 09:38, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 13:17, Scott
t for a while, and this is the primary
type of query I perform on the database.
Thanks,
Scott
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 06:51, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 15:18, Scott Cain wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am wondering if there is a way to force the use of a part
to do it
until this evening.
Thanks,
Scott
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 11:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, the question is, is there a way I can force the query planner to use
> > the index I want it to use?
>
> No (and I don't t
15 matches
Mail list logo
