From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jussi(dot)Mikkola(at)bonware(dot)com" <jussi(dot)mikkola(at)bonware(dot)com>, aspire420(at)hotpop(dot)com, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, in(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL giving jitters to Skypak |
Date: | 2004-08-25 01:32:06 |
Message-ID: | 20040824223143.W68447@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Christopher Petrilli wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:11:13 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier
> <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jussi(dot)Mikkola(at)bonware(dot)com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi !
>>>
>>> I think it would be a good idea to check how they are using indexes, and what
>>> the structure of the database is. Missing an index or two can affect quite
>>> much.
>>
>> As I'm experiencing with a client right now ... schema hurts alot too ...
>> all of their queries are bigint = int, so they are having to go through
>> their code and changing it to bigint = int::bigint so that indices are
>> being used properly ...
>
> I've always wondered... is there some reason we don't do "type
> promotion" to match indices? So if someone provides an int, and a
> bigint index exists, it should be used automatically, as they're
> interchangable (i.e. int is a subset of bigint).
This is fixed (or, partially addressed) in 8.0 ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-08-25 05:32:48 | Benchmark Results For Postgresql, Mysql, Firebird |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-25 01:09:42 | Re: PostgreSQL giving jitters to Skypak |