On 5/7/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
>> So my conclusion is that the function is being treated as volatile even
>> though it is stable because the number of records is small.
> I
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
>> So my conclusion is that the function is being treated as volatile even
>> though it is stable because the number of records is small.
> I don't think that's the issue. If this is depende
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
> Then I inserted 150 more records in the slow schema and pow - it started
> working like the fast schema.
>
> So my conclusion is that the function is being treated as volatile even
> though it is stable because the number of records i
On 5/5/07, Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/5/07, Aaron Bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=
0.00..4.72
> rows=1
> > > width=12
On 5/5/07, Aaron Bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=0.00..4.72
rows=1
> > width=1281) (actual time= 130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> > 10.
On 5/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=0.00..4.72rows=1
> width=1281) (actual time=130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> 10.Filter: ((start_day <= now(
On 5/5/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 05:00:53PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
> We don't allow deletes and updates are fairly infrequent. I also did a
> vacuum analyze to no effect.
How do you "not allow" deletes?
Permissions are set on the tables to onl
On 5/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=0.00..4.72rows=1
> width=1281) (actual time=130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> 10.Filter: ((start_day <= now(
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 05:00:53PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
>
> They have different data. The fast one has about 150 rows and the slow one
> has about 40 rows. The field in question here, the branch_id, is a
> BIGSERIAL in both.
I'd be astonished if a table of 40 rows ever got index scanned.
"Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=0.00..4.72 rows=1
> width=1281) (actual time=130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> 10.Filter: ((start_day <= now()) AND
> ((end_day IS NULL) OR (end_day >= now())
On 5/5/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:05:52PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
> I have two schemas, both with the exact same DDL. One performs great
and
Do they have the same data?
They have different data. The fast one has about 150 rows and the slow o
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:05:52PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:
> I have two schemas, both with the exact same DDL. One performs great and
Do they have the same data?
> I have
> checked and there IS an index, specifically a primary key index, on the
> branch_id in both schemas so I cannot figure ou
I have two schemas, both with the exact same DDL. One performs great and
the other has problems with a specific query:
SELECT *
FROM
branch_active_vw
WHERE branch_id = get_branch_for_zip ( '22151' )
ORDER BY branch_name
;
I am not defining the view here because the explain plans show the rea
13 matches
Mail list logo
