Mailing List Archive For pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Dec 2007 By Date

• Sat Dec 29 2007 - 12:22:00 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Merlin Moncure 
• Sat Dec 29 2007 - 05:38:40 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Fri Dec 28 2007 - 10:05:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Kevin Grittner 
• Fri Dec 28 2007 - 03:12:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Mikko Partio 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 13:54:28 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:50:46 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:42:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:54:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:26:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:24:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:18:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Jean-David Beyer 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 11:04:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 10:53:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 10:24:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 09:58:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Jared Mauch 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 09:51:40 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 08:50:09 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 08:20:03 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 08:14:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Gregory Stark 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 03:47:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Magnus Hagander 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 03:41:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 02:39:51 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 02:16:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler 
• Thu Dec 27 2007 - 01:10:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 23:36:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 23:10:46 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 22:34:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:40:53 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Devrim GÜNDÜZ 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:35:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:53:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:40:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:33:07 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:38:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:21:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:36:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:34:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:16:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:11:05 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:05:54 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:59:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:57:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:54:00 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 18:05:50 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:52:04 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:49:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Jared Mauch 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:40:40 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:54:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 17:52:20 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:35:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:14:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 15:58:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Jared Mauch 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 15:55:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Florian Weimer 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 15:52:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 15:52:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 15:22:30 EST
  • [PERFORM] pg_dump performance Jared Mauch 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 16:28:12 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david(at)lang.hm 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 14:32:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 14:28:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 13:23:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 13:13:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 12:36:15 EST
  • [PERFORM] Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Chris Hoover 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 12:20:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 12:12:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Pavel Stehule 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 11:23:28 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 10:41:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 10:21:05 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 10:15:03 EST
  • [PERFORM] With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 07:55:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 07:47:01 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 06:21:05 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Simon Riggs 
• Wed Dec 26 2007 - 06:06:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Cédric Villemain 
• Tue Dec 25 2007 - 19:06:45 EST
  • [PERFORM] More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 17:19:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Michael Stone 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 17:07:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 16:06:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Trevor Talbot 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 14:02:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Trevor Talbot 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 11:48:26 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 11:24:41 EST
  • Re: [HACKERS] function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 09:51:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Dan Langille 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 09:45:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 09:39:53 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Pavel Stehule 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 09:34:53 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Bruce Momjian 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 09:13:32 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Merlin Moncure 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 03:18:18 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Pavel Stehule 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 02:06:12 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Merlin Moncure 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 00:40:05 EST
  • Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 21 2007 - 00:09:28 EST
  • function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 18:23:46 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Harald Armin Massa 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 18:01:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:54:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:51:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Greg Smith 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:35:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Andrew Sullivan 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:28:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:15:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. Scott Marlowe 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:06:55 EST
  • [PERFORM] performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. S Golly 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 17:04:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 16:29:04 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Andrew Sullivan 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 16:24:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 16:03:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Chris Browne 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 16:04:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Andrew Sullivan 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 15:52:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Andrew Sullivan 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 15:35:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 15:17:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 15:07:39 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 15:02:57 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 14:53:51 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 14:45:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 14:40:11 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 13:47:53 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Trevor Talbot 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 13:29:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 13:03:54 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 12:43:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 12:39:55 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code A.M. 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 11:39:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 11:30:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 11:23:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 09:30:07 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 09:07:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 08:49:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Jan de Visser 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 08:35:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 06:14:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dimitri Fontaine 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 05:05:20 EST
  • [PERFORM] Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser 
• Thu Dec 20 2007 - 02:07:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Tom Lane 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 23:25:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 20:54:12 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Decibel! 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 20:51:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Decibel! 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 20:45:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Measuring table and index bloat Decibel! 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 19:39:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Tom Lane 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 18:38:25 EST
  • [PERFORM] Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dan Harris 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 17:54:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 16:55:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Paul Lambert 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:31:22 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:02:57 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 14:14:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Ron Mayer 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 14:14:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 14:07:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 14:03:32 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 13:59:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 13:50:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 12:12:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Jeremy Harris 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 10:55:31 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 10:52:31 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 10:45:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Trevor Talbot 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 10:26:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 07:49:26 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 07:41:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Cédric Villemain 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 07:04:11 EST
  • [PERFORM] Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Stuart Bishop 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 04:50:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Gregory Stark 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 04:47:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Gregory Stark 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 03:48:00 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Richard Huxton 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 01:46:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimising a query Paul Lambert 
• Wed Dec 19 2007 - 01:06:09 EST
  • [PERFORM] Optimising a query Paul Lambert 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:52:23 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:52:49 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:50:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Richard Huxton 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:33:54 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:26:49 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 11:05:46 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 04:23:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Heikki Linnakangas 
• Tue Dec 18 2007 - 04:05:26 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Dave Page 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 23:51:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Kris Jurka 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 23:31:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Robert Bernabe 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 16:05:41 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Multi-threading friendliness James Mansion 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 14:35:18 EST
  • [PERFORM] Multi-threading friendliness (was: libgcc double-free, backend won't die) Craig James 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 12:53:48 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows H. Hall 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 11:13:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 10:45:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Kevin Grittner 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 09:13:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Merlin Moncure 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 08:11:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Mon Dec 17 2007 - 03:52:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Bruce Momjian 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 17:49:55 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] SELECT * FROM table is too slow andrew(at)pillette.com 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 17:24:01 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die James Mansion 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 15:45:02 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows andrew(at)pillette.com 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 15:33:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Large Objects and Toast Usama Dar 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 15:06:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 14:03:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] SELECT * FROM table is too slow Steinar H. Gunderson 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 14:03:11 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 13:52:00 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows Merlin Moncure 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 13:37:28 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] SELECT * FROM table is too slow Joshua D. Drake 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 13:34:45 EST
  • [PERFORM] SELECT * FROM table is too slow Adam PAPAI 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 13:16:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 13:01:41 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 12:48:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die James Mansion 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 06:42:09 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows H. Hall 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 01:39:48 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Bruce Momjian 
• Sun Dec 16 2007 - 00:21:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows andrew(at)pillette.com 
• Sat Dec 15 2007 - 10:47:02 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows Greg Smith 
• Sat Dec 15 2007 - 06:43:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows Loïc Marteau 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 22:53:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] explanation for seeks in VACUUM Jeff Davis 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 20:16:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] update 600000 rows Steve Crawford 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 19:11:22 EST
  • [PERFORM] update 600000 rows okparanoid(at)free.fr 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 19:04:50 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] explanation for seeks in VACUUM Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 18:59:51 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 17:03:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 16:39:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Jonah H. Harris 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 16:35:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 16:24:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Andreas Kretschmer 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 16:03:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Jonah H. Harris 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 14:40:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] explanation for seeks in VACUUM (8.2.4) Jeff Davis 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 14:29:54 EST
  • [PERFORM] explanation for seeks in VACUUM Jeff Davis 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 14:03:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Bill Moran 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 12:11:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Alvaro Herrera 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 12:12:52 EST
  • [PERFORM] VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Kevin Grittner 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 12:11:41 EST
  • [PERFORM] Large Objects and Toast Campbell, Lance 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 12:04:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Joshua D. Drake 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 11:52:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Matthew 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 11:22:49 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 11:18:49 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Bill Moran 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 11:07:41 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 10:42:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Matthew 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 10:35:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 10:25:26 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code Bill Moran 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 10:19:11 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 10:01:09 EST
  • [PERFORM] viewing source code Roberts, Jon 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 06:11:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Heikki Linnakangas 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 06:03:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Need help on parameters and their values to tune the postgresql database Heikki Linnakangas 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 02:42:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 14 2007 - 02:30:11 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Russell Smith 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 18:43:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 16:40:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 16:19:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 15:54:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 15:22:04 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Erik Jones 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 15:16:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 15:09:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 14:38:32 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Alexander Staubo 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 14:20:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 14:10:28 EST
  • [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 13:52:22 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 13:12:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 12:46:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 12:26:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Alvaro Herrera 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 12:10:46 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 12:00:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 11:39:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 11:35:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 11:26:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 11:23:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 11:11:23 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 10:46:17 EST
  • [PERFORM] Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner 
• Thu Dec 13 2007 - 06:41:40 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Piotr Gasid³o 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 10:47:00 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 10:38:20 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 09:48:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] URI to kind of a benchmark Stefan Kaltenbrunner 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 09:28:32 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 09:15:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:58:50 EST
  • [PERFORM] URI to kind of a benchmark Harald Armin Massa 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:38:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:32:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:29:05 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:27:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:07:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:50:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:48:48 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Greg Smith 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:39:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:12:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:08:03 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:06:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 05:48:31 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler 
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 05:45:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 05:39:26 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Steinar H. Gunderson 
• Wed Dec 12 2007 - 05:16:43 EST
  • [PERFORM] Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 23:14:49 EST
  • [PERFORM] Need help on parameters and their values to tune the postgresql database Bebarta, Simanchala 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 19:17:51 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Joshua D. Drake 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 19:10:26 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Michael Stone 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 19:07:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Greg Smith 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 19:27:39 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning kelvan 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 18:37:57 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Simon Riggs 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 18:15:31 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Richard Huxton 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 17:34:01 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Erik Jones 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 17:29:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Scott Marlowe 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 17:27:48 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 18:18:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning kelvan 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 12:06:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 12:02:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:40:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:35:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Joshua D. Drake 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:25:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:19:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:10:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:57:03 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Magnus Hagander 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:53:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:50:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:43:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:28:39 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:25:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:20:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:17:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:14:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:12:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:07:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:05:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:02:26 EST
  • [PERFORM] Slow Query Pallav Kalva 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 08:23:31 EST
  • [PERFORM] Is it spam or not? Manolo _ 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 07:11:29 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG Heikki Linnakangas 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 06:57:24 EST
  • [PERFORM] Is it spam or not? Manolo _ 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 06:36:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG Manolo _ 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 06:21:28 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 06:16:02 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG Josh Tolley 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 06:06:52 EST
  • [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG Manolo _ 
• Tue Dec 11 2007 - 02:50:11 EST
  • [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 19:36:32 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Greg Smith 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 19:19:20 EST
  • Fwd: Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Kevin Grittner 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 19:15:51 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Kevin Grittner 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 19:29:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning kelvan 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 11:58:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Scott Marlowe 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 08:07:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Pavel Stehule 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 08:04:07 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Richard Huxton 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 07:58:01 EST
  • [PERFORM] Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Piotr Gasid³o 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 06:51:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query Marko Kreen 
• Mon Dec 10 2007 - 04:31:02 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Richard Huxton 
• Sun Dec 09 2007 - 11:32:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Vacuum full since 15 hours Heikki Linnakangas 
• Sun Dec 09 2007 - 05:42:41 EST
  • [PERFORM] Vacuum full since 15 hours Hervé Piedvache 
• Sat Dec 08 2007 - 17:07:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Mark Mielke 
• Sat Dec 08 2007 - 15:46:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Tom Lane 
• Sat Dec 08 2007 - 12:18:32 EST
  • [PERFORM] Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Mark Mielke 
• Sat Dec 08 2007 - 08:21:23 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Alvaro Herrera 
• Sat Dec 08 2007 - 02:06:46 EST
  • [PERFORM] Measuring table and index bloat Greg Smith 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 15:46:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Ron Mayer 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 14:13:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning kelvan 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 12:45:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Robert Treat 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 12:33:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Erik Jones 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 11:44:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Guillaume Cottenceau 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 10:42:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Erik Jones 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 10:36:04 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Trouble with LEFT JOIN using VIEWS. Tom Lane 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 05:55:08 EST
  • [PERFORM] Trouble with LEFT JOIN using VIEWS. Piotr Gasid³o 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 05:50:19 EST
  • [PERFORM] Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Guillaume Cottenceau 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 03:39:20 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Simon Riggs 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 03:12:55 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] database tuning Richard Huxton 
• Fri Dec 07 2007 - 00:11:40 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Ron Mayer 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 22:55:17 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Ron Mayer 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 23:14:10 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 20:55:02 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 20:28:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Ron Mayer 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 19:45:26 EST
  • [PERFORM] database tuning kelvan 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 15:10:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Mark Cave-Ayland 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 14:50:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Michael Stone 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 13:34:47 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 13:03:09 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Matthew 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 12:55:38 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 12:46:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Matthew 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 11:13:18 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Tom Lane 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 10:42:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Michael Stone 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 04:38:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Simon Riggs 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 03:50:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Dave Page 
• Thu Dec 06 2007 - 02:25:12 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Mark Cave-Ayland 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 19:07:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Decibel! 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 18:55:12 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended? Decibel! 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 17:20:16 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Scott Marlowe 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 15:43:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Merlin Moncure 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 15:07:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases Robert Treat 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 13:25:44 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Bill Moran 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 07:49:33 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimizer Not using the Right plan galy lee 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 06:26:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 04:06:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Usama Dar 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 03:39:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 03:32:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) ismo.tuononen(at)solenovo.fi 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 03:13:09 EST
  • [PERFORM] Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Robert Bernabe 
• Wed Dec 05 2007 - 01:47:04 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Greg Smith 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 20:57:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 19:55:03 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 19:39:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 18:58:31 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance James Mansion 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 17:14:55 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 15:14:22 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance James Mansion 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 15:27:01 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 15:15:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 14:44:08 EST
  • [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 15:03:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 14:28:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 14:15:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimizer Not using the Right plan Pallav Kalva 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 12:03:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:32:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Optimizer Not using the Right plan Tom Lane 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:32:14 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:16:41 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:11:28 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:06:42 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:06:05 EST
  • [PERFORM] Optimizer Not using the Right plan Pallav Kalva 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 11:00:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:55:30 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance James Mansion 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:50:12 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance James Mansion 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:41:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:40:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:27:55 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 10:21:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 09:53:43 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 09:30:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 09:11:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 08:45:24 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 08:24:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 08:16:57 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 07:40:32 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 07:23:02 EST
  • [PERFORM] RAID arrays and performance Matthew 
• Tue Dec 04 2007 - 03:15:08 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Simon Riggs 
• Mon Dec 03 2007 - 18:50:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Joshua D. Drake 
• Mon Dec 03 2007 - 17:14:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Merlin Moncure 
• Mon Dec 03 2007 - 13:52:49 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Robert Treat 
• Mon Dec 03 2007 - 11:12:22 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Paul Lindner 
• Mon Dec 03 2007 - 05:35:27 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Matthew 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 20:10:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Tom Lane 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 20:06:07 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Michael Glaesemann 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 19:56:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Tom Lane 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 19:28:15 EST
  • [PERFORM] EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Michael Glaesemann 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 18:32:21 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Beyers Cronje 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 18:13:07 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Mark Kirkwood 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 17:53:06 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Greg Smith 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 16:46:25 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Pavel Stehule 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 16:34:00 EST
  • [PERFORM] PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Beyers Cronje 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 15:26:58 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Usama Munir Dar 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 12:32:19 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Guido Neitzer 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 08:30:52 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Training Recommendations Merlin Moncure 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 07:35:45 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Mindaugas 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 07:07:37 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Gregory Stark 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 06:55:34 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Guillaume Smet 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 06:37:56 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Mindaugas 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 06:05:35 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Sami Dalouche 
• Sun Dec 02 2007 - 05:26:17 EST
  • [PERFORM] Dealing with big tables Mindaugas 
• Sat Dec 01 2007 - 12:03:59 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jean-David Beyer 
• Sat Dec 01 2007 - 11:39:15 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jonah H. Harris 
• Sat Dec 01 2007 - 09:42:36 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query henk de wit 
• Sat Dec 01 2007 - 08:31:13 EST
  • Re: [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jonah H. Harris 
• Sat Dec 01 2007 - 08:21:21 EST
  • [PERFORM] Utilizing multiple cores for one query henk de wit 

  This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 17:16:56 EDT