On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Eliot Gable wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
So, should I add indexes on the individual foreign key cols
idlink_id
and anno_id after all?
I doubt that would help.
You're sure of this?
It is
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
> So, should I add indexes on the individual foreign key cols idlink_id
>>> and anno_id after all?
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that would help.
>>
>
> You're sure of this?
>
>
>
It is always best to test and be certain.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
I had set the foreign keys in question (on the geno table) to be
primary keys. This is because this setup is basically a glorified
spreadsheet, and I don't want more than one cell corresponding to a
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> I had set the foreign keys in question (on the geno table) to be primary
> keys. This is because this setup is basically a glorified spreadsheet, and I
> don't want more than one cell corresponding to a particular tuple of
> idlink.id and anno.
Hi Eliot,
Thanks for the comment.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Eliot Gable wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Looking at this more closely, idlink_id and anno_id are primary keys, so
already have indexes on them, so my understanding (from the docs) is
there is no purpose i
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> Looking at this more closely, idlink_id and anno_id are primary keys, so
> already have indexes on them, so my understanding (from the docs) is there
> is no purpose in creating them. That's why I removed the indexes that were
> there (back l
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Faheem Mitha wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Faheem Mitha
You might need to create some indices, too.
Ok. To what purpose? This query picks up everything from the
tables and the planner does table scans, so conventio
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
> [If Kevin Grittner reads this, please fix your email address. I am getting
> bounces from your email address.]
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Faheem Mitha
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure, but defin
[If Kevin Grittner reads this, please fix your email address. I am
getting bounces from your email address.]
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Sure, but define sane setting, please. I guess part of the point is that I'm
trying to
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Faheem Mitha wrote:
work_mem = 1 GB (see diag.{tex/pdf}).
Sure, but define sane setting, please. I guess part of the point is that
I'm trying to keep memory low
You're trying to keep memory usage low, but you have work_mem
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Faheem Mitha wrote:
work_mem = 1 GB (see diag.{tex/pdf}).
Sure, but define sane setting, please. I guess part of the point is that I'm
trying to keep memory low
You're trying to keep memory usage low, but you have work_mem set to 1GB?
Matthew
--
"Prove to thyself that
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> Sure, but define sane setting, please. I guess part of the point is that I'm
> trying to keep memory low, and it seems this is not part of the planner's
> priorities. That it, it does not take memory usage into consideration when
> choosing a
On thing which I haven't really mentioned in this thread or in my writeup,
is that the planners value for the number of rows in geno is way off base
some of the time. It is around 800 million, it thinks it is 100 million. I
don't know if this is significant or not, or what to do about it.
eg
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Faheem Mitha wrote:
If you're concerned about memory usage, try reducing work_mem;
you've probably got it set to something huge.
work_mem = 1 GB (see diag.{tex/pdf}).
The point isn't that I'm using so much memory. Again, my question
is, why are
Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> If you're concerned about memory usage, try reducing work_mem;
>> you've probably got it set to something huge.
>
> work_mem = 1 GB (see diag.{tex/pdf}).
>
> The point isn't that I'm using so much memory. Again, my question
> is, why are these changes affecting memory us
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
It's not really too clear to me from reading this what specific
questions you're trying to answer.
Quote from opt.{tex/pdf}, Section 1:
"If I have to I can use Section~\ref{ped_hybrid} and
Section
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> It's not really too clear to me from reading this what specific
>> questions you're trying to answer.
>
> Quote from opt.{tex/pdf}, Section 1:
>
> "If I have to I can use Section~\ref{ped_hybrid} and
> Section~\ref{tped_hybrid}, but I am left
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to reduce both memory usage and runtime for a query.
Comments/suggestions gratefully received. Details are at
http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
See
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been trying to reduce both memory usage and runtime for a query.
> Comments/suggestions gratefully received. Details are at
>
> http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
>
> See particularly Section 1 - Backgro
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to reduce both memory usage and runtime for a query.
Comments/suggestions gratefully received. Details are at
http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
See particularly Section 1 - Background and Discussion.
If you want a text version, see
http://bull
20 matches
Mail list logo
