On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 07:44:44PM -0300, Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:
> After a week or so since upgrade from 9.2.9 to 9.3.5 I'm very
> surprised (in a good way) by the gain of performance.
>
> Most noticeable change is the reduced contention for records by
> exclusive/shared locks.
>
>
After a week or so since upgrade from 9.2.9 to 9.3.5 I'm very surprised
(in a good way) by the gain of performance.
Most noticeable change is the reduced contention for records by
exclusive/shared locks.
I can see increased numbers of requests fulfilled per minute (but I
can't be exact on th
I do have a development machine using constrained SSD disk, and I would
like to take advantage of compression.
But would not want to reformat everything on ZFS (I'm actually using Ext4).
Nevertheless, seems that Joe had a bad experience with Btrfs (my
expectation was to just migrate from Ext4 t
On 09/13/2014 11:14 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/2014 08:24 AM, Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:
Any experiences running PostgreSQL 9.3.5 on compressed Btrfs on
Linux?
Yes. It ran great for over a month but once we had some serious data i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/2014 08:24 AM, Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:
> Any experiences running PostgreSQL 9.3.5 on compressed Btrfs on
> Linux?
No personal experience, but someone recently pointed out this article
to me:
"Btrfs considered … helpful"
http:/
Any experiences running PostgreSQL 9.3.5 on compressed Btrfs on Linux?
Thanks,
Edson
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
> But the two queries don't return the same results. Of course the
> second one will be faster.
> The equivalent of your first query is to take the result sets from
> these two queries
(...)
> it's not
> too surprising that the planner can't come up with the optimal
> plan; you've posed quite a
