| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Major performance problem after upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 |
| Date: | 2010-08-30 08:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik14X_MYoZA5CHNGC8M7Rc0zXrRhoGw6FrfUPXm@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/8/30 Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com>:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> 2010/8/30 Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>:
>>>
>>> Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know that the data model is key/value pairs but it worked well in 8.3.
>>>> I need this flexibility.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> If i understand the query correctly it's a pivot-table, right?
>>>
>>
>> no - it's just EAV table on very large data :(
>
> Yes, it is an EAV table, but with query space comparable low (Max. 1 day out
> of years, typically 5mins out of years).
>
it is irelevant - there are repeated seq scans - so you need a
partitioning or classic table - maybe materialized views can help
Pavel
> Thnx.
>
> Ciao,
> Gerhard
>
> --
> http://www.wiesinger.com/
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2010-08-30 08:29:04 | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-08-30 07:58:16 | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |