Re: [GENERAL] Table size for partitioned setup

On 03/28/2016 02:55 PM, Mat Arye wrote: This will run on EC2 (or other cloud service) machines and on ssds. Right now runs on m4.4xlarge with 64GiB of ram. Willing to pay for beefy instances if it means better performance. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Rob Sargent

Re: [GENERAL] Table size for partitioned setup

This will run on EC2 (or other cloud service) machines and on ssds. Right now runs on m4.4xlarge with 64GiB of ram. Willing to pay for beefy instances if it means better performance. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > > > On 03/28/2016 02:41 PM, Mat

Re: [GENERAL] Table size for partitioned setup

On 03/28/2016 02:41 PM, Mat Arye wrote: Hi All, I am writing a program that needs time-series-based insert mostly workload. I need to make the system scaleable with many thousand of inserts/s. One of the techniques I plan to use is time-based table partitioning and I am trying to figure

[GENERAL] Table size for partitioned setup

Hi All, I am writing a program that needs time-series-based insert mostly workload. I need to make the system scaleable with many thousand of inserts/s. One of the techniques I plan to use is time-based table partitioning and I am trying to figure out how large to make my time tables. Does

[GENERAL] table size is not changed

I deleted 7 rows from a table and then execute vacuum analyze table. But table size not yet changed. I am using Postgresql 8.1. Could anyone please tell me what the problem is?

Re: [GENERAL] table size is not changed

try reindexing table. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] table size is not changed

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:43 AM, AI Rumman rumman...@gmail.com wrote: I deleted 7 rows from a table and then execute vacuum analyze table. But table size not yet changed. I am using Postgresql 8.1. Could anyone please tell me what the problem is?

Re: [GENERAL] table size and storage location

paul rivers-2 wrote: chuckee wrote: 1) how do I find out the size, in MB, of a particular table (called 'capture' in this case). I tried entering the SQL query SELECT (pg_tablespace_size('capture')); The result was the following: ERROR: tablespace capture does not exist You're

Re: [GENERAL] table size and storage location

chuckee wrote: paul rivers-2 wrote: chuckee wrote: 1) how do I find out the size, in MB, of a particular table (called 'capture' in this case). I tried entering the SQL query SELECT (pg_tablespace_size('capture')); The result was the following: ERROR: tablespace capture does not exist

Re: [GENERAL] table size and storage location

On 25/03/2008, chuckee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks but I still get the error 'ERROR: relation capture does not exist' when trying these two alternative functions you mention above. There is definitely a table called 'capture' in my database! Are you sure you're connected to the right

Re: [GENERAL] table size and storage location

Andrej Ricnik-Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 25/03/2008, chuckee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks but I still get the error 'ERROR: relation capture does not exist' when trying these two alternative functions you mention above. There is definitely a table called 'capture' in my database!

[GENERAL] table size and storage location

Hi, I have two questions: 1) how do I find out the size, in MB, of a particular table (called 'capture' in this case). I tried entering the SQL query SELECT (pg_tablespace_size('capture')); The result was the following: ERROR: tablespace capture does not exist 2) how do I find out where the

Re: [GENERAL] table size and storage location

chuckee wrote: 1) how do I find out the size, in MB, of a particular table (called 'capture' in this case). I tried entering the SQL query SELECT (pg_tablespace_size('capture')); The result was the following: ERROR: tablespace capture does not exist You're looking for

[GENERAL] Table size

I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? In psql How can I know the size of a single table? If know pls replay. Thanks i advance -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM, lak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? What do you mean by comments in a table ? In psql How can I know the size of a single table? Select pg_relation_size('mytable');

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

On Mar 21, 2008, at 4:33 AM, lak wrote: I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? Comments are created with the COMMENT sql command and, in pg, are stored in pg_description. In psql How can I know the size of a single table?

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

lak wrote: I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? Assuming you want comments on the table schema definitions, use COMMENT ON. CREATE TABLE sometable ( -- definition ); COMMENT ON TABLE sometable IS This is a table; If that's not what

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

Pavan Deolasee wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM, lak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? What do you mean by comments in a table ? I think what you are referring to is detailed in

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM, lak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two questions. How can I enter comments into a table? Where the comments are stored? What do you mean by comments in a table ? Comments on a table or a column or on other

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Andreas Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments on objects can set by: comment on ... is 'comment'; Oh cool.. I did not such facility exists. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh cool.. I did not such facility exists. I meant, I did not know such facility exists Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list

Re: [GENERAL] Table size

I meant, I did not know such facility exists When you use pgautodoc, it automatically grabs those comments and puts them in the web page it crreates... more coolness! -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

[GENERAL] table size in 8.3

Guys, I've created 2 sample tables with 1 column each - type char(1) and type integer. After inserting equal number of rows (4M or more) tablesizes are exactly the same, while I would expect table with char(1) to be slighly smaller... What's causing it ? Thanks! Server version is 8.3. Best

Re: [GENERAL] table size in 8.3

Alex Vinogradovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've created 2 sample tables with 1 column each - type char(1) and type integer. After inserting equal number of rows (4M or more) tablesizes are exactly the same, while I would expect table with char(1) to be slighly smaller... What's causing it ?

[GENERAL] table size performace

How many rows does it take for select performance on a table to degrade? I hope this question isn't to ambiguous (ie lollipop licks). But seriously, 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? With just a regular lookup on an unique index. Nothing crazy or aggregate. EX: select * from bigtable where id =

Re: [GENERAL] table size performace

am 07.09.2005, um 1:01:11 -0700 mailte Matthew Peter folgendes: How many rows does it take for select performance on a table to degrade? I hope this question isn't to ambiguous (ie lollipop licks). But seriously, 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? With just a regular lookup on an unique index.

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dennis Gearon wrote: | Gaetano Mendola wrote: | | Dennis Gearon wrote: | | I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, | etc. | | Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following | characteristics: | |

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Great Idea! When I get that far, I will try it. Gaetano Mendola wrote: snip For partion in some way I don't mean only split it in more tables. You can use some available tools in postgres and continue to see this table as one but implemented behind the scenes with more tables. One usefull and

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Dennis Gearon wrote: Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. Google uses a Linux cluster and there database is HUGE. I do not know which database they use. I bet they built their own specifically for what they do. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake But the table

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Actually, now that I think about it, they use a special table type that the INDEX is also the DATUM. It is possible to recover the data, out of the index listing. So go down the index, then decode the indexing value - voila, a whole step saved. I have no idea what engine these table types are

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 23:01 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Dennis Gearon wrote: Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. Google uses a Linux cluster and there database is HUGE. I do not know which database they use. I bet they built their own

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

On 21. okt 2004, at 01:30, Dennis Gearon wrote: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Grrr. Geek wet-dream. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE I

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Dennis Gearon wrote: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records This is a really huge monster one, and if you don't partition that table in some way I think

[GENERAL] table size/record limit

I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Hi, Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other

Re: [GENERAL] table size/record limit

Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. But the table I am worried about is the one sized = 3.6 GIGA records. Tino Wildenhain wrote: Hi, Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay,

Re: [GENERAL] table size

Hi David, I'd say that if it is a new app develop it with 7.4 and use statement level triggers otherwise you could use normal triggers and perform a count each time but that will slow things down dramatically. Other option is to use cron and write a daemon/script to periodically check the

Re: [GENERAL] table size

Hi, I have a table in my database which can grow very quickly. Is there some way to partition the table so that when it reaches a certain size the information in it is copied to a temporary table and the original table is free again. You can create a view and update the view definition

[GENERAL] Table Size/Performance

Is there a way to figure out which file represents which table? IE: I have a file 21691 and I want to know what table it is. Also, I've heard that pg splits tables when they get to about 1 gig. I have a table that could grow to that. It is 700+ megs now. Will performance/indexes be effected