Folks,
I have a question about views: I want to have a fairly wide view (lots of
columns) where most of the columns have some heavyish calculations in them,
but I'm concerned that it will have to calculate every column even when I'm
not selecting them. So, the question is, if I have 5 col
"Peter Darley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a question about views: I want to have a fairly wide view (lots of
> columns) where most of the columns have some heavyish calculations in them,
> but I'm concerned that it will have to calculate every column even when I'm
> not selecting t
Hello,
I found that if you SHMALL value was less than your SHMMAX value,
the value wouldn't take.
J
Tom Lane wrote:
Qing Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My suspision is that the change i made in /etc/rc does not take
effect.Is there a way to check it?
sysctl has an option to show the values
Qing Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My suspision is that the change i made in /etc/rc does not take
> effect.Is there a way to check it?
sysctl has an option to show the values currently in effect.
I believe that /etc/rc is the correct place to set shmmax on OSX 10.3 or
later ... but we have
Tom:
I used sysctl -A to see the kernel state, I got:
kern.sysv.shmmax: -1
It looks the value is too big!
Thanks!
Qing
On Apr 13, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Qing Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My suspision is that the change i made in /etc/rc does not take
effect.Is there a way to chec
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> live=# analyze cl;
> ANALYZE
> live=# select reltuples from pg_class where relname = 'cl';
> reltuples
> ---
> 53580
> (1 row)
> live=# vacuum cl;
> VACUUM
> live=# select reltuples from pg_class where relname = 'cl';
> reltuples
> -
On OS X, I've always made these changes in:
/System/Library/StartupItems/SystemTuning/SystemTuning
and manually checked it with sysctl after reboot. Works for me.
100k buffers is probably overkill. There can be a performance penalty with too many
buffers. See this lists' archives for more.
Hi, all,
I have got a new MaC OS G5 with 8GB RAM. So i tried to increase
the shmmax in Kernel so that I can take advantage of the RAM.
I searched the web and read the manual for PG7.4 chapter 16.5.1.
After that, I edited /etc/rc file:
sysctl -w kern.sysv.shmmax=4294967296 // byte
sysctl -w kern.sy
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 14:04, Jeremy Dunn wrote:
>
> > There's a hard limit of 1000, I believe. Didn't it give you
> > a warning saying so?
>
> No warning at 2000, and no warning at 100,000 either!
>
> Remember we are still on 7.2.x. The docs here
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.2/static/sql
> There's a hard limit of 1000, I believe. Didn't it give you
> a warning saying so?
No warning at 2000, and no warning at 100,000 either!
Remember we are still on 7.2.x. The docs here
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.2/static/sql-altertable.html don't say
anything about a limit.
This is go
In the process of optimizing some queries, I have found the following
query seems to degrade in performance the more accurate I make the
statistics on the table... whether by using increased alter table ...
set statistics or by using vacuum..
SELECT
count( cl.caller_id ),
npanxx.
"Jeremy Dunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interestingly, I tried increasing the stat size for the CID column to
> 2000, analyzing, and checking the accuracy of the stats again.
There's a hard limit of 1000, I believe. Didn't it give you a warning
saying so?
At 1000 the ANALYZE sample size woul
> > When I just tried it again with a value of 300, analyze,
> then run the query, I get a *worse* result for an estimate. I don't
understand
> > this.
>
> That's annoying. How repeatable are these results --- if you
> do ANALYZE over again several times, how much does the row
> count estima
Shea,Dan [CIS] wrote:
The index is
Indexes:
"forecastelement_rwv_idx" btree (region_id, wx_element, valid_time)
-Original Message-
From: Shea,Dan [CIS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Postgres Performance
Subject: [PERFORM] Deleting certain duplicates
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pailloncy_Jean-G=E9rard?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you using a nondefault value of
>> BLCKSZ? If so what?
> Sorry, I forgot to specify I use BLCKSZ of 32768,
Okay, the numbers are sensible then. The index density seems a bit low
(754 entries/page where the theoretical i
Hm, this is odd. That says you've got 349519 live index entries in
only
463 actively-used index pages, or an average of 754 per page, which
AFAICS could not fit in an 8K page. Are you using a nondefault value
of
BLCKSZ? If so what?
Sorry, I forgot to specify I use BLCKSZ of 32768, the same blo
16 matches
Mail list logo
