> I don't think Brian has any interest in being helped.
>I suspect he'd made up his mind already.
With all due respect Tom, I don't think I'm the one demonstrating a closed
mind.
Rather than trying to figure out whats going on in my head, how about
figuring out whats going on in my database? :-)
I'm answering every question I can. I supplied HW info because someone
asked, and then Tom said: "The hardware and platform details you gave mean
nothing to me...". Which would you like guys??
I am not allowed to share schemas...sorry but thats what the contract says.
The queries represent code, thus intellectual property, thus I can't post
them.
I posted an Explain output at some point and was told my database was too
small to be fast. So, I added 10,000 records, vacummed, and my selects were
still the same speed.
How many people on this list have asked for a tuning/performance doc? I
hear that there is one coming soon. Thats great. Saying RTM is fine too,
if the manual is clear. Look at Michael Mattox's thread on this very topic
on 6/24. Michael said:
"I think the biggest area of confusion for me was that the various
parameters
are very briefly described and no context is given for their parameters.?
Shridhar then suggested he change OSes, upgrade his kernel (with specific
patches), get different HW, etc. That goes a bit beyond casual tuning.
I'm not saying (and never did say) that postgres could not be fast. All I
ever said was that with the same minimal effort applied to both DBs,
postgres was slower.
I really wasn't looking for battle this fine day....I'm going outside to
BBQ! (and if you conclude from that that I'm not interested in this or
that, there's nothing I can do about that. It is a beautiful day out and
bbq does sound more fun than this list. sorry)
Brian
