[PERFORM] Lanzamiento www.PortalTPV.com

2006-09-16 Thread Portal TPV
Title: Novedad PortalTPV Novedad PortalTPV.com !!!   Toda la información para el profesional del TPV, novedades, noticias del sector, artículos de opinión, foros, blogs y una fantástica bolsa de trabajo del sector. Conoce todo el Hardware y el Software disponible de una voz profesional y c

Re: [PERFORM] High CPU Load

2006-09-16 Thread Evgeny Gridasov
Jérôme, How many concurrent connections do you have? Because You've got only 2GB of ram this is important! Postgres process takes some bytes in memory =) .. I don't exactly how many, but thinking if it is about 2Mb you'll get about 1Gb of ram used only by postgres' processes (for 512 connections)

Re: [PERFORM] Poor performance on seq scan

2006-09-16 Thread Piotr Kołaczkowski
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 12:47, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Laszlo Nagy wrote: > > I made another test. I create a file with the identifiers and names of > > the products: > > > > psql#\o products.txt > > psql#select id,name from product; > > > > Then I can search using grep: > > > > grep "Mug"

Re: [PERFORM] RAID 0 not as fast as expected

2006-09-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:46:04PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: Yes. What's pretty large? We've had to redefine large recently, now we're talking about systems with between 100TB and 1,000TB. Do you actually have PostgreSQL databases in that size range? No, they

Re: [PERFORM] RAID 0 not as fast as expected

2006-09-16 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:46:04PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: > Yes. What's pretty large? We've had to redefine large recently, now we're > talking about systems with between 100TB and 1,000TB. Do you actually have PostgreSQL databases in that size range? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www

Re: [PERFORM] RAID 0 not as fast as expected

2006-09-16 Thread Luke Lonergan
Bucky, On 9/15/06 11:28 AM, "Bucky Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What other file systems have you had good success with? Solaris would be > nice, but it looks like I'm stuck running on FreeBSD (6.1, amd64) so > UFS2 would be the default. Not sure about XFS on BSD, and I'm not sure > at the