Re: Slow query with big tables

From: Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Tommi K <t2nn2t(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Slow query with big tables
Date: 2016-08-26 13:40:20
Message-ID: CAFwQ8rfgqxg0As4DvK9sku2o-7SKGhMp0hS_YU6h_REHOPdXjg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tommi K <t2nn2t(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hello,
> thanks for the response. I did not get the response to my email even
> though I am subscribed to the pgsql-performance mail list. Let's hope that
> I get the next one :)
>

Please include the email you are replying to when you respond. It saves
everyone time if they don't have to dig up your old emails, and many of us
discard old emails anyway and have no idea what you wrote before.

Craig

> Increasing work_mem did not have great impact on the performance. But I
> will try to update the PostgreSQL version to see if it speeds up things.
>
> However is there way to keep query time constant as the database size
> grows. Should I use partitioning or partial indexes?
>
> Best Regards,
> Tommi Kaksonen
>

--
---------------------------------
Craig A. James
Chief Technology Officer
eMolecules, Inc.
---------------------------------

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tommi K 2016-08-26 14:25:05 Re: Slow query with big tables
Previous Message Tommi K 2016-08-26 13:17:49 Re: Slow query with big tables