"Oliveiros Cristina" writes:
> Frankly, I cannot understand the reason for this, it seems the planner is
> taking radically diferent plans on the two conditions (they are below).
Yup, and you seem to be near the crossover point where it thinks they
have equal cost. You need to be fixing the ina
Hi, All
Suppose you have a query like this
SELECT *
FROM t_sitesresumebydate a
JOIN t_triple_association c
ON "IDSiteResume" = "IDResume"
WHERE "dtDate" BETWEEN '2009-2-1'
AND '2009-2-3'
AND "IDHitsAccount" = 378284
With this time interval it completes in less than a second.
If I add one da
Hello,
I have a table with some 2.2 million rows on a Pentium4, 1.8GHz with 512
MB RAM.
Some queries I launch take quite a long time, and I'm wondering whether
this is normal,or whether I can get better performance somehow.
As an example, I have a field which is in char(2), with 23 different
poss
20/01/2003 12:38:20 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Moritz Lennert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One question I asked myself is whether the use of char(2) is the best
>> option.
>
>It may not be, particularly if you are running in a non-English locale.
>Comparisons will invoke the stan
Moritz,
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize this, it is certainly closer to what I
> need.
> Next time I'll look better (google brought up references to this
> list, so
> I subscribed here).
Hey, there are 18 active lists now ... we don't expect anyone to get
the right one right off!
-Josh Berkus
---
Moritz Lennert wrote:
Hello,
I have a table with some 2.2 million rows on a Pentium4, 1.8GHz with 512
MB RAM.
Some queries I launch take quite a long time, and I'm wondering whether
this is normal,or whether I can get better performance somehow.
As an example, I have a field which is in char(2)
"Moritz Lennert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One question I asked myself is whether the use of char(2) is the best
> option.
It may not be, particularly if you are running in a non-English locale.
Comparisons will invoke the standard library routine strcoll(), which is
depressingly slow in some
> Moritz,
>
> There is a performance mailing list at:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --Josh
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this, it is certainly closer to what I need.
Next time I'll look better (google brought up references to this list, so
I subscribed here).
Thanks for the hint,
Moritz
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:10:24 +0100 (CET), "Moritz Lennert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll try that, although I haven't changed any of the tuples since import
>of the data (this is a static table...)
Then I must have miscalculated something :-( What does VACUUM VERBOSE
ANALYZE say?
>> From wha
Moritz,
There is a performance mailing list at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Josh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:42:12 +0100 (CET), "Moritz Lennert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>explain analyze select commune_residence, type_diplome from rec81 where
>>type_diplome = '11';
>>NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>>
>>Seq Scan on rec81 (cost=0.00..120316.30 rows=177698 width=15) (actual
>>time=23.03.
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:40:34 +0100 (CET), "Moritz Lennert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have a table with some 2.2 million rows on a Pentium4, 1.8GHz with 512
MB RAM.
>>Some queries I launch take quite a long time, and I'm wondering whether
this is normal,or whether I can get better performan
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:40:34 +0100 (CET), "Moritz Lennert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a table with some 2.2 million rows on a Pentium4, 1.8GHz with 512
>MB RAM.
>Some queries I launch take quite a long time, and I'm wondering whether
>this is normal,or whether I can get better performance s
Hello,
I have a table with some 2.2 million rows on a Pentium4, 1.8GHz with 512
MB RAM.
Some queries I launch take quite a long time, and I'm wondering whether
this is normal,or whether I can get better performance somehow.
As an example, I have a field which is in char(2), with 23 different
poss
14 matches
Mail list logo
