On 02/19/2010 10:24:57 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the automatic sequential key generation speed is unrelated
> > to table size when using postgresql.
>
> There is no sequence to generate as far as I know. The problem is the
> si
Thanks, Paolo, for your help. Sorry about the attachments. I have
updated the pmacctd.conf file and removed a couple of the plugins to
prevent data replication.
Regards
--
Daniel Levy
Aptivate | http://www.aptivate.org/ | +44 (0)1223 760887
The Humanitarian Centre, Fenner's, Gresham Road, Cam
Hi Karl,
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 02/19/2010 07:42:08 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > I deleted the primary key from that table because it should not be
> > necessary (there should not be any duplicates if everything is
> > configured correctly) and it makes inserts extremely
On 02/19/2010 07:42:08 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi Paolo and Daniel,
> I deleted the primary key from that table because it should not be
> necessary (there should not be any duplicates if everything is
> configured
> correctly) and it makes inserts extremely slow (by a factor of
> 10-100)
>
Sorry, I realised just after I hit Send (as usual):
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > I also wonder: how does the primary key of the 1 min table look like?
> > Is it any different from the 1 hour table? With the sql_don_try_update
> > turned on and the default indexing, duplicates ar
Hi Paolo and Daniel,
(please allow me to jump in as I may be able to help here, despite
currently being in country working on a project.)
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> I also wonder: how does the primary key of the 1 min table look like? Is
> it any different from the 1 hour tabl
Hi Daniel,
I see the 1 minute table contains duplicates - it would be
better to say that _everything_ extracted is repeated twice.
It could be handy to add tags to the aggregation method and
assign a different 'post_tag' to each plugin so to identify
who is generating them.
I also wonder: how do
Hi Daniel,
Getting through the data and compare traffic figures is,
IHMO, the more practical approach - compared to trying to
reproduce the issue in a controlled environment. Once you
discover a descrepancy, it would be great to receive the
contributing data of each report to see where the issue
c
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for getting back to me. The version of pmacct being used is
0.9.1-1ubuntu1. I'm not sure how the problem was discovered, but I have
asked to person who found the problem to tell me and I will forward you
the response. As for the reports, I'm not entirely sure what you need. I
am c
Hi Daniel,
Unfortunately the configuration doesn't make evident where the
issue can be. The 'sql_dont_try_update' very well protects against
duplicate tuples - so i'm rather inclined to exclude that reason.
Which version are you using? How you did discover the issue - ie.
did you upgrade recentl
10 matches
Mail list logo
