| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Klemme <shortcutter(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Eyal Wilde <eyal(at)impactsoft(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql) |
| Date: | 2012-05-09 12:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wHndzyvo+WmLdu0V6Xhj5cCdVCumf3qZShxHYh5RFFxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter(at)googlemail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> let's see the query plan...when you turned it off, did it go faster?
>> put your suspicious plans here: http://explain.depesz.com/
>
> I suggest to post three plans:
>
> 1. insert into temp table
> 2. access to temp table before analyze
> 3. access to temp table after analyze
>
> Maybe getting rid of the temp table (e.g. using a view or even an
> inline view) is even better than optimizing temp table access.
yeah -- perhaps a CTE might work as well.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MauMau | 2012-05-09 13:06:17 | Could synchronous streaming replication really degrade the performance of the primary? |
| Previous Message | Robert Klemme | 2012-05-09 07:11:42 | Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql) |