Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?

From: Henry Drexler <alonup8tb(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?
Date: 2012-12-10 13:26:38
Message-ID: CAAtgU9TP+8fPCfzf5kfhROzP1v2+fN7Z4SO_oDDpj2xDsQAPSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> The obvious difference is that this one finds all 5 buffers it needs
> in buffers already, while the first one had to read them in. So this
> supports the idea that your data has simply grown too large for your
> RAM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>

Jeff thanks for that explanation and taking the time to expose me to the
explain analyze. I am currently reading through the docs so I can use them
and understand them.

Thank you again for all of your help.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Cowell 2012-12-10 14:08:14 Re: Corrupt indexes on slave when using pg_bulkload on master
Previous Message Eelke Klein 2012-12-10 13:26:17 Out of memory error