No, I perform a single DELETE for about 8/10 rows at a time.
Yesterday I tried to raise the parameter default_statistics_target on the file
postgresql.conf, setting it to 50 (previously it was set to 10) and everything
went ok.
It seems that postgres needs some time to adapt itself
Galantucci Giovanni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I perform a single DELETE for about 8/10 rows at a time.
Yesterday I tried to raise the parameter default_statistics_target on the
file postgresql.conf, setting it to 50 (previously it was set to 10) and
everything went ok.
It
Galantucci Giovanni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I perform a single DELETE for about 8/10 rows at a time.
Yesterday I tried to raise the parameter default_statistics_target on the
file postgresql.conf, setting it to 50 (previously it was set to 10) and
everything went ok.
It
Hi,
Anyone has tried a setup combining tablespaces with NFS-mounted partitions?
I'm considering the idea as a performance-booster --- our problem is
that we are
renting our dedicated server from a hoster that does not offer much
flexibility
in terms of custom hardware configuration; so, the
Hi all.
Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz, SATA
Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4 (previously a 8.1.9).
I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and PostgreSQL 8.2.3
I have almost the same postgresql.conf in both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz, SATA
Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4 (previously a 8.1.9).
I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and PostgreSQL
8.2.3
I have almost the same
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 10:38 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2
GHz, SATA Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4
(previously a 8.1.9).
I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and
No, changing to fsync off didn't improve performance at all.
Settings
work_mem = 64MB
max_stack_depth = 7MB #in the old server is 8MB but if I set in here give me
the ulimit error
max_fsm_pages = 204800
effective_cache_size = 512MB
Atuvacuum is off.
I have run vacuum full and vacuum analyze. The
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, changing to fsync off didn't improve performance at all.
Settings
work_mem = 64MB
max_stack_depth = 7MB #in the old server is 8MB but if I set in here give me
the ulimit error
max_fsm_pages = 204800
effective_cache_size = 512MB
This is my dmesg file, I see there are some errors but I don't know how to
manage!!!
What do you mean with don't top post?
Sorry but I'm new with this kind of mailing list and I don't want to botter
some others.
Sorry my bad English too.
Thanks for your help
- Mensaje original
De:
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my dmesg file, I see there are some errors but I don't know how to
manage!!!
nothing too horrible. Just wanted to make sure you weren't getting
lots of bad sectors or timeouts.
Nothing too bad looking there.
What do you mean
Carlos Moreno wrote:
Anyone has tried a setup combining tablespaces with NFS-mounted partitions?
There has been some discussion of this recently, you can find it in the
archives (http://archives.postgresql.org/). The word seems to be that NFS can
lead to data corruption.
Craig
On 9/19/07, Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Anyone has tried a setup combining tablespaces with NFS-mounted partitions?
I'm considering the idea as a performance-booster --- our problem is
that we are
renting our dedicated server from a hoster that does not offer much
13 matches
Mail list logo
