From: | "Omar Bettin" <o(dot)bettin(at)informaticaindustriale(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | R: [9.1] unusable for large views (SOLVED) |
Date: | 2011-10-24 15:04:35 |
Message-ID: | 000001cc925e$424c2790$c6e476b0$@bettin@informaticaindustriale.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom,
...are about two hours I am trying to communicate that the problem has been
solved, but I do not see the messages in the mailing list...
Anyway,
the problems was a bad installation of database (pgsql functions).
9.1.1 is working good.
is 4% to 8% faster than 9.0.5.
Thanks a lot to everyone.
Regards,
Omar
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Inviato: lunedì 24 ottobre 2011 16:46
A: Omar Bettin
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Oggetto: Re: [HACKERS] [9.1] unusable for large views
"Omar Bettin" <o(dot)bettin(at)informaticaindustriale(dot)it> writes:
> I have tried 9.1.1 win64 version and when I am trying to declare a cursor
> for a very large view (lot of joins and aggregate functions),
> postgres is using around 3GB of memory and the query never returns.
Could we see a self-contained test case? I'm not about to try to
reverse-engineer the schema that goes with such a monster query.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-24 15:10:22 | Re: termination of backend waiting for sync rep generates a junk log message |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-24 14:51:07 | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |