Mailing lists [pgsql-performance]

10 February 2010

• 00:44   Re: DISTINCT vs. GROUP BY Dimi Paun
• 03:11   PostgreSQL - case studies Jayadevan M
• 03:34   512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? Bryce Nesbitt
• 03:39   Re: PostgreSQL - case studies Amitabh Kant
• 04:10   How exactly PostgreSQL allocates memory for its needs? Anton Maksimenkov
• 04:49   Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL - case studies Scott Marlowe
• 05:37   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline Greg Smith
• 06:11   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline Scott Marlowe
• 07:49   Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? Bryce Nesbitt
• 08:12   Re: Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? Pavel Stehule
• 10:01   Deferred constraint and delete performance Franck Routier
• 14:02   Re: Deferred constraint and delete performance Tom Lane
• 14:47   Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL - case studies Ing. Marcos L. Ortiz Valmaseda
• 14:49   Re: PostgreSQL - case studies Kevin Grittner
• 14:55   Re: PostgreSQL - case studies Stephen Frost
• 15:43   Re: How exactly PostgreSQL allocates memory for its needs? Justin Graf
• 16:23   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline Jeff
• 16:36   Re: Deferred constraint and delete performance Andres Freund
• 17:08   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline Scott Carey
• 19:32   Re: Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? Robert Haas
• 21:19   perf problem with huge table rama
• 21:45   Re: perf problem with huge table Justin Graf
• 22:16   Re: perf problem with huge table Dave Crooke
• 22:21   Re: Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? Jorge Montero
• 22:31   Re: perf problem with huge table Jon Lewison
• 22:48   Re: perf problem with huge table Dave Crooke
• 23:09   Re: perf problem with huge table Jon Lewison
• 23:51   Re: perf problem with huge table Dave Crooke