Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Henry Drexler
Subject Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?
Date
Msg-id CAAtgU9TP+8fPCfzf5kfhROzP1v2+fN7Z4SO_oDDpj2xDsQAPSQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general


On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
The obvious difference is that this one finds all 5 buffers it needs
in buffers already, while the first one had to read them in.  So this
supports the idea that your data has simply grown too large for your
RAM.

Cheers,

Jeff


Jeff thanks for that explanation and taking the time to expose me to the explain analyze.  I am currently reading through the docs so I can use them and understand them.

Thank you again for all of your help.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Eelke Klein
Date:
Subject: Out of memory error
Next
From: James Cowell
Date:
Subject: Re: Corrupt indexes on slave when using pg_bulkload on master