Re: your mail

>
> Hi,
>
> I have done a little more testing, and the performance bottleneck
> seems definitely be memory related. Note that it does not really seems
> to be dependend on buffer-settings, but really on disk caches.
>
> additional info:
> the index on this table is around 155 Megs big
>
> Now, if I do a count(*) on '^rol', after the second query, this takes
> around 1 second, and returns 2528.
>
> On the other hand, if I do a count(*) on '^ric', his takes consequently
> around 1:30 mins, no matter how often I run it. This returns 7866.
>
> A search on count(*) of '^lling' and '^tones' takes around 2.5 secs after
> running it several times.

Wow, this makes no sense to me.
>
> Running different queries in between affect these times.
>
> My computer has 64 Megs of RAM, and I'm running X (linux 2.0.30)
>
> So, it seems to me that with this amount of memory, my system is usable
> only for smaller tables (ie. no 550,000 rows in the main table, and no
> 4,500,000 rows in the 'index' table). If I want better performance for this
> setup, I need faster disks and more (how much more?) memory. Wish I could
> test this somehow.... Maybe I can ask my sysop at the university if I may
> test this on the dual PPro with 256 megs, but I don't think so....
>
> Maarten
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> | TU Delft, The Netherlands, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems |
> | Department of Electrical Engineering |
> | Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section |
> | M(dot)Boekhold(at)et(dot)tudelft(dot)nl |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)