| From: | <postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'postgres performance list'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
| Date: | 2012-12-04 18:54:29 |
| Message-ID: | 098601cdd250$ce2f85d0$6a8e9170$@foo.me.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Ah, okay - my reasoning was there's a big fancy-pants raid array behind it
that makes disk operations faster relative to CPU ones.
I'll test it and see if it actually makes any difference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Freire [mailto:klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: 04 December 2012 18:33
To: Philip Scott
Cc: postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk; postgres performance list
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Philip Scott <pscott(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> r_p_c 2-> 1 (s_p_c 1->0.5):
Is this really necessary?
(looks like a no-op, unless your CPU is slow)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Scott | 2012-12-04 18:55:17 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-12-04 18:51:13 | Re: autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Scott | 2012-12-04 18:55:17 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
| Previous Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2012-12-04 18:50:41 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |