Subject: (2nd Notice) Score standings update for Q4 Message-ID: <20141023102960642.ejGB4dfPfZ.29928854404.Cayden@braughtonconstruction.follerservers.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: -

When I execute the cmd 'emerge gnome-light' , had got the error like folowing, please : net-libs/webkit-gtk-2.0.4::gentoo failed (compile phase): emake failed

This notification is meant to inform you of current changes that might occur.

Generated for: <lojban@lojban.org>
Regarding: score Changes as of 2014
Report #048-393160

After viewing your report if you have spotted any discrepancies in your recent activity please address them.

Your report as of Oct-23, 2014
View the details of your generated report. [summary ready]

A security alert is a special message that you can request if you have reason to believe that information on your credit report may be inaccurate. It displays on the report and asks potential-creditors who view your report to verify the activity.

Thank you,

CCR Reporting systems

one

two

three

-l, it's not. The point isn't controlled sub-boiling temperatures, it's something on If you want to modify your subscription status please go-to-here. DDR Media at PO_Box_254 ~ Jerome AZ 86331. If may write of you fish not to use the link. the border between simmering and boiling for foods that just need a long time to cook at that approximate temperature. Slow cooker recipes are not supposed to be very sensitive. They're expecting to be approximately boiling for most of the time, and the difference between low and high is pretty much whether the boil is marginal or a bit more substantial. In many cases, this just matters because the quantity in the pot varies, and it takes more to keep the stuff at the top hotter if it's farther from the bottom, or if it hasn't all cooked down into the liquid yet. In either case, it shouldn't be a full rolling boil; it's just boiling on the bottom, so the rest of the liquid is probably a bit below the boiling point. And yes, this is still slow cooking. It's not boiling fast enough to lose a huge amount of liquid (or worse, boil over) with the lid on.

Maybe the question should be: why does EF add theORDER BY? I think it needs it for splitting the query result in the parts that are used for creating the included types. EF probably expects the database engine to do the ordering more efficiently (through indexes) than CLR code. I'm pretty sure there's no way to get rid of it.Gert ArnoldAug 26 at 11:48

Agreed with Arnold. You can try to create an index on Children. An order by shouldn't slow the query that much actually...gilles emmanuelAug 26 at 11:55

The problem is that even with a handwritten query, without specifying a column in the query to order by, SQL assumes it should order by the child table's primary key causing a very slow query and the warningOperator used tempdb to spill data during execution with spill level 1because it's trying to sort all the rows in the child table.JamieAug 26 at 12:29

If you have performance issues or concerns using ORMs you may want to consider using SP's. That's the only way you'll have the flexibility in performance and optimisationRexSep 26 at 9:39

Doesn't .include force enumeration? That is my guess, I don't think they are LazyMark HomerOct 17 at 10:27

interesting ! when you start the system with 90% reduction in volume and immediately lock up, do any of the locks ever clear? On the surface it would seem that the trigger might be doing something that takes more time with the new index.GregMay 19 at 12:33

I can't 100% say that they don't clear, but they don't do so in a sane amount of time. The L UPDATEs that would normally take ~1 msec would take more like 1 hour+. It may be that this is anextremeperformance degradation, and that the locks are just a symptom of the still-running queries.Andrew ReganMay 19 at 13:21

Just for grins, what does the explain look like without the new index? if i am reading the explain right that is an 11 second call in the trigger. that can't be good.GregMay 19 at 14:26

Without the index, the plan is identical, except that the trigger takes 0.377ms, not 11626.219msAndrew ReganMay 19 at 14:40

got me, have you tried bumping shared_buffers,temp_buffers,work_mem in postgresql.conf? maybe the new index is pushing the mem hits back to a disk fetch. i am not familiar with the mem/disk performance of aws. maybe a vacuum analyze on the tables above?GregMay 19 at 15:27