Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Postgres Documentation List <docs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem
Date: 1998-08-28 14:06:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> By the way, PostgreSQL somehow seems to have become significantly
> faster for my use sometime over the last month or two.  For the select
> and update queries I regularly execute, which generally involve two
> or three tables and ditto indices, I'm seeing what feels like twice
> the speed of what I got before -- and I've been increasing the amount
> of data in my tables without any schema changes or index additions!

Without knowing the real reason, I'm going to jump in and have the type
coersion code take credit for this *grin*.

In particular, it _may_ do a better job of matching up indices with

Are there other reasons why things may have gotten faster?

It's about the time to start working on release notes (Bruce?), and
perhaps this could be quantified and mentioned...

btw, the release notes are in sgml (doc/src/sgml/release.sgml) and all
previous notes and detailed change lists I could find have been put into
there. The notes for the next release can look very similar to what is
there already, and there is already a section set aside for it.

                           - Tom

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-08-28 14:19:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression failures]
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-08-28 14:05:06
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpgtcl and Tcl 8.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group