| From: | Aren Cambre <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core |
| Date: | 2011-05-23 14:06:48 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTim=3U4q7MEHfF4uyWCwR4H0b-P0rA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> It's always good to hear when these things work out. Thanks for
> reporting back.
>
> Using the set-based nature of relational databases to your advantage,
> writing smarter queries that do more work server-side with fewer
> round-trips, and effective batching can make a huge difference.
>
Glad I could be a good digital citizen! :-)
Correction: it's going to run for significantly more than 2 hours, but far
less than 30 hours!
I'm loving seeing the CPU meter showing all 8 of my (fake) cores being
pounded mercilessly!
Aren
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Johansen | 2011-05-23 15:54:52 | Re: Pushing LIMIT into sub-queries of a UNION ALL? |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-05-23 13:30:34 | Re: Performance degradation of inserts when database size grows |