Mailing lists [pgsql-performance]

12 November 2010

• 01:31   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Jon Nelson
• 03:26   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Pavel Stehule
• 03:33   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Jon Nelson
• 03:39   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Pavel Stehule
• 08:08   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Cédric Villemain
• 08:15   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Cédric Villemain
• 09:10   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Vitalii Tymchyshyn
• 10:00   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Cédric Villemain
• 11:06   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Vitalii Tymchyshyn
• 11:41   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Cédric Villemain
• 12:47   MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 12:52   Re: MVCC performance issue Kenneth Marshall
• 12:55   Re: MVCC performance issue Thom Brown
• 14:33   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Jon Nelson
• 14:34   Re: MVCC performance issue bricklen
• 14:37   Re: MVCC performance issue Kenneth Marshall
• 14:53   Re: MVCC performance issue Vitalii Tymchyshyn
• 15:13   Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why? Pavel Stehule
• 15:14   Re: MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 15:18   Re: MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 15:24   Re: MVCC performance issue Andy Colson
• 15:27   Re: MVCC performance issue Kenneth Marshall
• 15:30   Re: MVCC performance issue Thom Brown
• 15:41   Re: MVCC performance issue Ben Chobot
• 15:41   Re: MVCC performance issue Tom Lane
• 15:42   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Robert Haas
• 15:43   Re: MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 15:46   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Tom Lane
• 16:13   Re: MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 16:27   Re: MVCC performance issue Scott Marlowe
• 16:40   Re: MVCC performance issue Scott Marlowe
• 16:48   Re: MVCC performance issue Scott Marlowe
• 17:12   Re: MVCC performance issue Scott Carey
• 17:18   Re: MVCC performance issue Scott Carey
• 17:57   Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan Robert Haas
• 20:07   Re: questions regarding shared_buffers behavior Robert Haas
• 21:07   Re: Why dose the planner select one bad scan plan. 静安寺
• 21:07   MVCC performance issue Kyriacos Kyriacou
• 21:07   autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum kuopo