Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler

From: Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler
Date: 2000-07-12 17:00:14
Message-ID: 396CA41E.DC5DE9B8@valinux.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
> Mike Mascari gave you a detailed answer to that, which you seemd to just blow
> off, based on you guesstimate that it would run too long:

That is a separate issue - unrelated to this performance issue and it
was not "blown" off, I was merely making a comment.

> Right, as your explain output showed: the planner is picking this index
> and using it. I'd guess that your time is getting lost in the sort step.

I think you're probably right. It's hard to imagine that sorting is that
much slower, but it's hard to say.

Your ideas for selecting based on the date are intriguing, however the
schema of the db was not done with that in mind. Everyone thinks I'm a
nut when I say this, but the date is stored in a char(14) field in
gregorian format: 19990101125959

So perhaps sorting a char(14) field is somehow majorly slower now.

No I don't have 6.5.3 installed anymore - it was totally fubar and
wasn't running anymore.

Tim

--
Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com
Lead Developer - SourceForge
VA Linux Systems
408-542-5723

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-07-12 17:01:07 Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-07-12 16:58:28 AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples