Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas G. Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem
Date
Msg-id 35E6B96C.DFE84AAE@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [DOCS] Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem
List 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
queries.

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] minor patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpgtcl and Tcl 8.0