On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 14:29, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Do you run your 2650s with hyperthreading on? I found that slowed mine
down under load, but we never had more than a couple dozen users
hitting
the db at once, so we may well have had a
On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
How much memory is in the box? I've heard horror stories about
performance with 2 gigs of ram, which is why I made them order mine
with 2 gigs. Does the 3/DC have battery backed cache set to write
back?
4GB RAM and battery backed cache set to
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 15:32, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
How much memory is in the box? I've heard horror stories about
performance with 2 gigs of ram, which is why I made them order mine
with 2 gigs. Does the 3/DC have battery backed cache set
On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Joel Fradkin wrote:
I don't think my clients would like me to aprox as it is a count of
their
records. What I plan on doing assuming I can get all my other problems
fixed
(as mentioned I am going to try and get paid help to see if I goofed
it up
some where) is make
On Apr 9, 2005 10:00 AM, John DeSoi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Joel Fradkin wrote: I don't think my clients would like me to aprox as it is a count of their records. What I plan on doing assuming I can get all my other problems fixed (as mentioned I am going to try and get
On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Bob Henkel wrote:
Forms also offers a button that say get hit count. So if you really
need to know the record count you can get it without moving off the
current record.
That's a good idea too. Maybe in my interface you could click on the ?
to get the count without
Per a thread a while back the discussion was along the lines
of serving data up to the web quick.
Our app currently pulls a bunch of data to several query
pages.
I have tried and not gotten the queries to return as fast as
they do now which is a huge disappointment as the hardware is
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:29:13AM -0400, Joel Fradkin wrote:
My understanding was this gets slower as you move further into the data, but
we have several options to modify the search, and I do not believe our
clients will page very far intro a dataset.
It gets slower because when you do an
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:07 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:29:13AM -0400, Joel Fradkin wrote:
Is there a fast way to get the count?
Not really, no. You have to perform a count() to get it, which is
possibly expensive. One way to do it, though, is to do
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:29 -0400, Joel Fradkin wrote:
Our app currently pulls a bunch of data to several query pages.
My idea is to use the limit and offset to return just the first 50
records, if they hit next I can set the offset.
My understanding was this gets slower as you move
Ragnar =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hafsta=F0?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you might reduce the performance loss if your dataset is ordered by
a UNIQUE index.
select * from mytable where somecondition
ORDER by uniquecol limit 50;
and next:
select * from mytable where somecondition
select * from mytable where somecondition AND uniquecol?
ORDER by uniquecol limit 50 OFFSET 50;
where the ? is placeholder for last value returned by last query.
Uh, you don't want the OFFSET there do you? But otherwise, yeah,
this is a popular solution for
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Ragnar =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hafsta=F0?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you might reduce the performance loss if your dataset is ordered by
a UNIQUE index.
select * from mytable where somecondition
ORDER by uniquecol limit
On Apr 8, 2005 1:10 PM, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:08, Joel Fradkin wrote: Thanks all. I might have to add a button to do the count on command so they don't get the hit. I would want it to return the count of the condition, not the currently displayed number of
Bob Henkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From a simple/high level perspective why is this? That is why can't
PostgreSQL do aggregates as well across large chunks of data. I'm
assuming it extremely complicated. Otherwise the folks around here
would have churned out a fix in a month or less and made
Believe me I just spent two months converting our app, I do not wish to give
up on that work. We do a great deal more then count. Specifically many of
our queries run much slower on postgres. As mentioned I purchased a 4 proc
box with 8 gigs of memory for this upgrade (Dell may have been a poor
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:23:25PM -0400, Joel Fradkin wrote:
Believe me I just spent two months converting our app, I do not wish to give
our queries run much slower on postgres. As mentioned I purchased a 4 proc
I suspect you want the -performance list. And it'd be real handy to
get some
On Apr 8, 2005 2:23 PM, Joel Fradkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believe me I just spent two months converting our app, I do not wish to giveup on that work. We do a great deal more then count. Specifically many ofour queries run much slower on postgres. As mentioned I purchased a 4 procbox with 8
Quoting Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:08, Joel Fradkin wrote:
I might have to add a button to do the count on command so they don't get
the hit.
I would want it to return the count of the condition, not the currently
displayed number of rows.
Judging
I have asked specific questions and paid
attention to the various threads on configuration.
I will take my config files and post on
the performance thread that is a good suggestion (personnaly I have more faith
in this forum then a paid consultant, but at this point I am willing to try
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mischa Sandberg
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 2:40 PM
To: Scott Marlowe
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] getting count for a specific querry
Quoting Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:08, Joel Fradkin wrote:
I
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:23, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Joel Fradkin wrote:
I set up the data on 4 10k scsi drives in a powervault and my wal on 2
15k
drives. I am using links to those from the install directory. It
starts and
stops ok this way, but maybe it
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Bob Henkel wrote:
desktop SATA drive with no RAID? I'm by any means as knowledgeable
about I/O
setup as many of you are but my 2 cents wonders if the Dell RAID is
really
that much slower than a competitively priced/speced alternative? Would
Joel's problems just fade
On Apr 8, 2005 3:42 PM, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:35, Bob Henkel wrote: On Apr 8, 2005 3:23 PM, Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Joel Fradkin wrote: I set up the data on 4 10k scsi drives in a powervault and my wal on 2 15k
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:36, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Note that there are several different RAID controllers you can get with
a DELL. I had good luck with the PERC 4C (AMI MegaRAID based) at my
I've had bad luck regarding speed with *all* of
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:41, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Bob Henkel wrote:
desktop SATA drive with no RAID? I'm by any means as knowledgeable
about I/O
setup as many of you are but my 2 cents wonders if the Dell RAID is
really
that much slower than a competitively
I turned off hyperthreading (I saw that on the list that it did not help on
Linux).
I am using a pretty lightweight windows box Optiplex with IDE 750-meg
internal 2.4 mghz cpu.
My desktop has 2 gig, so might not be bad idea to try it local (I have
installed), but me thinks its not totally a
Since it is a count of matched condition records I may not have a way
around.
What you could do is cache the search results (just caching the id's of
the rows to display is enough and uses little space) in a cache table,
numbering them with your sort order using a temporary sequence, so that
Sandberg
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 2:40 PM
To: Scott Marlowe
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] getting count for a specific querry
Quoting Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:08, Joel Fradkin wrote:
I might have to add a button to do the count on command so
29 matches
Mail list logo
