On 03/28/2010 03:05 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu> writes:
>>> ... In any case, feedback would be helpful. Details of my attempts
>>> at optimization are at
>>> http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
>>
>> By and large, this is not the way to ask for help on the Postgres lists.
>> If you're supplying extremely large test data or something, it's fair to
>> provide a link instead of putting the information in-line, but otherwise
>> you should try to make your email self-contained. Those of us who are
>> willing to help are not here just to help you --- we'd like other people
>> to learn from it too, both at the time and later from the archived
>> discussion. So the information needs to be in the email thread, not
>> only on some transient web page.
>
> Dear Tom Lane,
>
> Thank you for your message. I understand your point of view. However,
> the three documents I cite in my previous message have significant
> graphical content, eg. time-memory graphs. At least two of them are
> relevant, the third tangentially so. Also, these two files (opt and
> diag) are 25 and 41 pages respectively in their pdf version. I don't
> think it would be very easy to cram these two into an email.
>
> So, in light of that, would it be permissible to attach these documents
> to my email, since you want a self-contained email? If so, I hope I do
> not fall afoul of spam filters. The two documents are 3.3M (opt.pdf) and
> 132K (diag.pdf).
>
> Sincerely, Faheem Mitha.
>
Wait... Your saying your question is so complex it needs 41 pages (including graphs) to ask? I didn't bother before,
butnow I'm curious, I'll have to go take a look.
-Andy
