[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Thornton) writes:
Back in 2001, there was a lengthy thread on the PG Hackers list about
PG and journaling file systems
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-05/msg00017.php),
but there was no decisive conclusion regarding what FS to use. At the
time the
I have a big table with some int fields. I frequently need to do
queries like:
SELECT if2, count(*) FROM table WHERE if1 = 20 GROUP BY if2;
The problem is that this is slow and frequently requires a seqscan. I'd
like to cache the results in a second table and update the counts with
triggers,
Joseph Shraibman wrote:
Is raid 5 much faster than raid 10? On a 4 disk array with 3 data disks
and 1 parity disk, you have to write 4/3rds the original data, while on
raid 10 you have to write 2 times the original data, so logically raid 5
should be faster.
RAID 5 will give you more capacity,
Joseph Shraibman wrote:
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
Do these features make a difference? Far more than you would
imagine. On one postgres server I just upgraded, we went from a 3Ware
8x7200-RPM
RAID-10 configuration to an LSI 320-2 SCSI 3x10k RAID-5, with 256M
Is raid 5 much faster than raid 10?
Hi,
I test a configuration where one table is divided in 256 sub-table.
And I use a RULE to offer a single view to the data.
For INSERT I have create 256 rules like:
CREATE RULE ndicti_000 AS ON INSERT TO ndict
WHERE (NEW.word_id 255) = 000 DO INSTEAD
INSERT INTO ndict_000 VALUES(
Hello,
We're having a substantial problem with our FreeBSD 5.2 database
server
running PostgreSQL - it's getting a lot of traffic (figure about 3,000
queries per second), but queries are slow, and it's seemingly waiting
on
other things than CPU time
Could this be a 5.2 performance issue ?
In