On 6/11/07, Vladimir Stankovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems that I have an issue with the performance of a PostgreSQL server.
I'm running write-intensive, TPC-C like tests. The workload consist of
150 to 200 thousand transactions. The performance varies dramatically,
between 5 an
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:38:01 -0700
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would consider PGCluster, but it seems to be a patch to Postgres
> itself. I'm reluctant to introduce such a major piece of technology
Yes it is. For most of the time it is not very much behind actual
versions of postg
choksi writes:
I had a database which uses to hold some 50 Mill records and disk
space used was 103 GB. I deleted around 34 Mill records but still the
disk size is same. Can some on please shed some light on this.
When records are deleted they are only marked in the database.
When you run vacu
Hello,
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 16:14 -0700, Craig James wrote:
> Cluster
> Seems pretty good, but web site is not current,
http://www.pgcluster.org is a bit up2date, also
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgcluster is up2date (at least downloads
page :) )
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replic
On 6/14/07, Craig A. James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking for replication solutions, I find:
Slony-I
Seems good, single master only, master is a single point of failure,
no good failover system for electing a new master or having a failed
master rejoin the cluster. Slave databases are
On 6/15/07, Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think I can use PGPool as the replicator, because then it becomes a new
single point of failure that could bring the whole system down. If you're
using it for INSERT/UPDATE, then there can only be one PGPool server.
Are you sure? I h
