kes 570 MS
---IndexSize: average 300 MB
Am Sa., 8. Mai 2021 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Semen Yefimenko <
[email protected]>:
> Unless I'm overlooking something obvious one result has 500 000 rows the
>> other 7 000.
>
> You are right, it wasn't. I have
>
> Unless I'm overlooking something obvious one result has 500 000 rows the
> other 7 000.
You are right, it wasn't. I have 2 datasets, one containing 12 mil entries
and the other 14 mil entries. I accidentally used the one with 12 mil
entries in that table which actually only contains 7000~ entr
chrieb Vijaykumar Jain <
[email protected]>:
> Is this on windows ?
>
> I see a thread that mentions of performance penalty due to parallel worker
>
>
> There is a mailing thread with subject line -
> Huge performance penalty with parallel queries in Wind
e are no tx using the dead tuples)
>
> and then run your query.
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 13:34, Semen Yefimenko
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry if I'm cumulatively answering everyone in one E-Mail, I'm not sure
>> how
> unsatisfiable
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12-6.html Release date:
> 2021-02-11
>
>
> > COLLATE pg_catalog."default"
>
> You can test the "C" Collation in some columns (keys ? ) ; in theory,
> it should be faster :
> "Th
M Boltenkov <
[email protected]>:
> On 05/06/21 21:15, Alexey M Boltenkov wrote:
>
> On 05/06/21 19:11, [email protected] wrote:
>
> - Mensagem original -
>
> De: "Semen Yefimenko"
> Para: "pgsql-performance"
>
> Enviadas:
Hi there,
I've recently been involved in migrating our old system to SQL Server and
then PostgreSQL. Everything has been working fine so far but now after
executing our tests on Postgres, we saw a very slow running query on a
large table in our database.
I have tried asking on other platforms but
