Mailing lists [pgsql-performance]

1 November 2013

• 01:27   Update Trigger latency utilizing the IS DISTINCT FROM syntax 
• 02:32   Re: Re: Adding foreign key constraint holds exclusive lock for too long (on production database) Ben Hoyt
• 18:51   how are you? Ioana Danes

2 November 2013

• 21:54   postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка
• 22:34   Re: Hot Standby performance issue Tomas Vondra
• 22:40   Re: Hot Standby performance issue Tomas Vondra

4 November 2013

• 01:05   Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 21:56   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Kevin Grittner
• 22:03   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Elliot
• 22:15   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Jeff Janes
• 23:44   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 23:50   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 23:53   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Igor Neyman

5 November 2013

• 00:10   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 00:22   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Elliot
• 00:26   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Igor Neyman
• 00:32   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 01:10   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 01:59   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field desmodemone
• 02:24   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro
• 11:36   ORDER BY performance deteriorates very quickly as dataset grows Standa K.
• 11:37   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка
• 12:23   Re: ORDER BY performance deteriorates very quickly as dataset grows aasat
• 12:24   Re: ORDER BY performance deteriorates very quickly as dataset grows aasat
• 15:25   Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Jan Walter
• 16:18   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Igor Neyman
• 19:10   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Jeff Janes
• 20:30   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Merlin Moncure
• 22:51   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Merlin Moncure
• 23:00   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Josh Berkus

6 November 2013

• 00:53   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Jan Walter
• 01:19   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Merlin Moncure
• 02:00   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Michael Paquier
• 02:22   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Scott Marlowe
• 03:27   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Jan Walter
• 11:53   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка
• 17:36   Re: Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree Merlin Moncure
• 19:36   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Scott Marlowe
• 19:44   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Merlin Moncure
• 19:46   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Scott Marlowe
• 20:04   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Scott Marlowe
• 22:00   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Jeff Janes
• 22:24   Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field Caio Casimiro

7 November 2013

• 02:18   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Merlin Moncure
• 11:51   Re: postgresql recommendation memory David Rees
• 12:34   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка
• 13:13   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка

8 November 2013

• 17:05   Size of IN list affects query plan Jan Walter
• 17:31   Re: Size of IN list affects query plan bricklen
• 17:32   Re: Size of IN list affects query plan Tom Lane
• 22:48   Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Tom Lane

11 November 2013

• 03:21   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Sergey Konoplev
• 11:09   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка
• 16:56   Re: Size of IN list affects query plan Jan Walter
• 19:14   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Scott Marlowe
• 19:25   Re: postgresql recommendation memory ktm@rice.edu
• 22:48   Re: Planner performance extremely affected by an hanging transaction (20-30 times)? Tom Lane
• 23:03   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Sergey Konoplev
• 23:10   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Sergey Konoplev
• 23:58   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Jeff Janes

12 November 2013

• 00:48   Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jim Nasby
• 00:52   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Daniel Farina
• 00:58   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jim Nasby
• 01:00   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Daniel Farina
• 01:57   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jeff Janes
• 02:28   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jim Nasby
• 03:31   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jeff Janes
• 07:22   Unexpected slow query time when joining small table with large table Ryan LeCompte
• 11:41   Re: postgresql recommendation memory Евгений Селявка

13 November 2013

• 03:17   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jeff Janes
• 03:22   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Jim Nasby
• 03:25   Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Kevin Grittner
• 03:25   BitMap Heap Scan & BitMap Index Scan monalee_dba
• 03:25   Order By Clause, Slows Query Performance? monalee_dba
• 04:25   Re: BitMap Heap Scan & BitMap Index Scan Michael Paquier
• 04:31   Re: Order By Clause, Slows Query Performance? Michael Paquier
• 04:47   Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Tom Lane
• 12:07   Re: Order By Clause, Slows Query Performance? Albe Laurenz
• 12:41   Re: BitMap Heap Scan & BitMap Index Scan Torsten Förtsch
• 13:29   CREATE TABLE AS WITH FREEZE ? Marc Mamin
• 18:03   Re: Horrific time for getting 1 record from an index? Merlin Moncure
• 22:34   Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Josh Berkus
• 23:15   Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Tom Lane

14 November 2013

• 17:37   Bad plan choices & statistic targets with a GIN index Dieter Komendera
• 18:00   Re: Bad plan choices & statistic targets with a GIN index Tom Lane

16 November 2013

• 01:24   General slowness when retrieving a relatively small number of rows Patrick Krecker
• 22:49   Re: Reseting statistics counters Strahinja Kustudić

18 November 2013

• 19:38   Query in cache Rogerio Pereira
• 19:44   Re: Query in cache Andreas Kretschmer
• 19:57   Re: Query in cache ktm@rice.edu
• 21:28   Error Broken pipe in log postgres Rogerio Pereira
• 22:49   Re: Error Broken pipe in log postgres Craig James

19 November 2013

• 03:36   Re: Query in cache salah jubeh
• 04:37   Re: Query in cache Sergey Konoplev
• 17:00   Re: Query in cache ktm@rice.edu
• 18:50   Re: Query in cache Rogerio Pereira

20 November 2013

• 15:36   Error install -pgmemcache Rogerio Pereira

21 November 2013

• 23:20   UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco
• 23:31   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT desmodemone
• 23:36   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco
• 23:38   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT desmodemone

22 November 2013

• 00:12   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco
• 01:04   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco
• 01:59   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT bricklen
• 01:59   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT bricklen
• 02:14   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco
• 15:06   Re: Query in cache Rogerio Pereira
• 18:54   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Merlin Moncure
• 20:36   Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT Robert DiFalco

25 November 2013

• 23:01   Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Lee Nguyen
• 23:11   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Gavin Flower
• 23:19   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Heikki Linnakangas
• 23:28   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Andrew Dunstan

26 November 2013

• 00:00   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Gudmundsson Martin (mg)
• 00:22   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Mark Kirkwood
• 01:50   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Merlin Moncure
• 01:57   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine David Lang
• 02:26   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Merlin Moncure
• 09:13   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Xenofon Papadopoulos
• 09:16   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine David Lang
• 09:30   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Xenofon Papadopoulos
• 12:47   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Rafael Martinez
• 16:52   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Boszormenyi Zoltan
• 17:14   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Stephen Frost
• 17:26   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Craig James
• 18:31   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Andrew Dunstan
• 18:40   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Andrew Dunstan
• 19:29   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine David Boreham
• 20:24   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Craig James
• 20:31   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Josh Berkus
• 20:53   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Merlin Moncure
• 21:41   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Ben Chobot
• 22:18   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Craig James
• 22:51   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine David Kerr

28 November 2013

• 05:58   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Dong Ye
• 11:45   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Gudmundsson Martin (mg)
• 21:11   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Dong Ye
• 21:40   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Scott Marlowe

29 November 2013

• 04:42   Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine Michael Paquier

30 November 2013

• 01:08   One query run twice in parallel results in huge performance decrease Jan Michel
• 01:51   Re: One query run twice in parallel results in huge performance decrease Jeff Janes
• 02:03   Re: One query run twice in parallel results in huge performance decrease Jan Michel
• 02:48   Re: One query run twice in parallel results in huge performance decrease Tom Lane
• 14:05   Re: One query run twice in parallel results in huge performance decrease Jan Michel