Re: Anyone got time to review an article?

From: Tom Copeland <tom(at)infoether(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anyone got time to review an article?
Date: 2004-11-24 14:35:23
Message-ID: 1101306923.8976.7.camel@hal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 23:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'm on vacation, so I don't have the ability to test the actual SQL.
> The
> article text is fine. You might want to, in future articles, suggest
> that
> people run EXPLAIN ANALYZE and not just EXPLAIN in order to see when
> the
> query planner is estimating wrong.

Ah, good idea, thanks.

> BTW, the queries that GForge uses to generate the category counts for
> the
> trove map are egregiously bad and generate wrong counts to boot.
> They're
> basically a loop of queries, one *per category*, when the whole thing
> could
> be done in a single query.

Heh... I bet that's not the only set of hideous queries in there. Ah
well... onwards and upwards...

> I've been meaning to fix this for some
> time,
> but I got hung up on getting GForge installed on my dev machine. Maybe
> later ...

Maybe I can catch up with you on #postgresql sometime and we can sort of
some of those problems...

Yours,

Tom

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Copeland 2004-11-24 17:44:35 Re: Anyone got time to review an article?
Previous Message Tom Copeland 2004-11-24 14:32:20 Re: Anyone got time to review an article?