Re: your mail

>
> Hi,
>
> I have done a little more testing, and the performance bottleneck
> seems definitely be memory related. Note that it does not really seems
> to be dependend on buffer-settings, but really on disk caches.
>
> additional info:
>     the index on this table is around 155 Megs big
>
> Now, if I do a count(*) on '^rol', after the second query, this takes
> around 1 second, and returns 2528.
>
> On the other hand, if I do a count(*) on '^ric', his takes consequently
> around 1:30 mins, no matter how often I run it. This returns 7866.
>
> A search on count(*) of '^lling' and '^tones' takes around 2.5 secs after
> running it several times.

Wow, this makes no sense to me.
>
> Running different queries in between affect these times.
>
> My computer has 64 Megs of RAM, and I'm running X (linux 2.0.30)
>
> So, it seems to me that with this amount of memory, my system is usable
> only for smaller tables (ie. no 550,000 rows in the main table, and no
> 4,500,000 rows in the 'index' table). If I want better performance for this
> setup, I need faster disks and more (how much more?) memory. Wish I could
> test this somehow.... Maybe I can ask my sysop at the university if I may
> test this on the dual PPro with 256 megs, but I don't think so....
>
> Maarten
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> | TU Delft, The Netherlands, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems  |
> |                   Department of Electrical Engineering                    |
> |           Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section             |
> |                          M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl                         |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)