On 2/15/07, Guillaume Smet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The use of PostGIS is slower than the previous cube/earthdistance
approach (on a similar query and plan).
For the record, here are new information about my proximity query work.
Thanks to Tom Lane, I found the reason of the performance drop
On 2/14/07, Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You'll find that PostGIS does a pretty good job of selectivity
estimation.
So I finally have a working PostGIS and I fixed the query to use PostGIS.
The use of PostGIS is slower than the previous cube/earthdistance
approach (on a similar query
You'll find that PostGIS does a pretty good job of selectivity
estimation.
P
On 13-Feb-07, at 9:09 AM, Guillaume Smet wrote:
Hi all,
Following the work on Mark Stosberg on this list (thanks Mark!), I
optimized our slow proximity queries by using cube, earthdistance
(shipped with contrib) an
Paul,
On 2/14/07, Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You'll find that PostGIS does a pretty good job of selectivity
estimation.
PostGIS is probably what I'm going to experiment in the future. The
only problem is that it's really big for a very basic need.
With my current method, I don't ev
Hi all,
Following the work on Mark Stosberg on this list (thanks Mark!), I
optimized our slow proximity queries by using cube, earthdistance
(shipped with contrib) and a gist index. The result is globally very
interesting apart for a specific query and we'd like to be able to fix
it too to be mor
