From: postgresql@foo.me.uk
To: 'postgres performance list' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:54:29 -0000
Message-ID: <098601cdd250$ce2f85d0$6a8e9170$@foo.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGTBQpb2FZfbhLD_vwUJfNja-KHHypJ6zXrOPjsUwn0+prvtcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <092a01cdd230$ff6143c0$fe23cb40$@foo.me.uk>
<CAGTBQpaKOfZs+qy+S7CCPcTg7PYOrwgcQAXgWV88cQTn-BFstg@mail.gmail.com>
<098101cdd24d$892524c0$9b6f6e40$@foo.me.uk>
<CAGTBQpb2FZfbhLD_vwUJfNja-KHHypJ6zXrOPjsUwn0+prvtcA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Ah, okay - my reasoning was there's a big fancy-pants raid array behind it
that makes disk operations faster relative to CPU ones.
I'll test it and see if it actually makes any difference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Freire [mailto:klaussfreire@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 December 2012 18:33
To: Philip Scott
Cc: postgresql@foo.me.uk; postgres performance list
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Philip Scott <pscott@foo.me.uk> wrote:
> r_p_c 2-> 1 (s_p_c 1->0.5):
Is this really necessary?
(looks like a no-op, unless your CPU is slow)
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: postgresql@foo.me.uk
Subject: Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
In-Reply-To: <098601cdd250$ce2f85d0$6a8e9170$@foo.me.uk>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox