Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This rule works for all the locales I have installed ... but I don't
have any Far Eastern locales installed. Also, my test cases are only
covering ASCII characters, and I believe many locales have some non-ASCII
letters that sort after 'Z'. I'm not sure
* Scott Marlowe:
If the right two disks fail in a RAID-10 you lose everything.
Admittedly, that's a pretty remote possibility,
It's not, unless you carefully layout the RAID-1 subunits so that
their drives aren't physically adjacent. 8-/ I don't think many
controllers support that.
--
On Nov 9, 2007 7:06 AM, Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just read this document and thought I should share it with this list:
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20Preview.pdf
Nice presentation. Thanks for posting it on here.
Among other things (FreeBSD advocacy, mostly :) ),
Hi,
I just read this document and thought I should share it with this list:
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20Preview.pdf
Among other things (FreeBSD advocacy, mostly :) ), it contains a direct
comparison between MySQL and PostgreSQL on various platforms, with
PostgreSQL winning!
Among other things (FreeBSD advocacy, mostly :) ), it contains a direct
comparison between MySQL and PostgreSQL on various platforms, with
PostgreSQL winning!
Hello,
If the queries are complex, this is understable. I had a performance
review of a Hibernate project (Java Object Relation
On Nov 9, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
I just read this document and thought I should share it with this
list:
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20Preview.pdf
Among other things (FreeBSD advocacy, mostly :) ), it contains a
direct
comparison between MySQL and
On Nov 9, 2007 9:41 AM, Sebastian Hennebrueder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the queries are complex, this is understable. I had a performance
review of a Hibernate project (Java Object Relation Mapping) using
MySQL. ORM produces easily complex queries with joins and subqueries.
MySQL uses
Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
around ownership of memory cache lines in case of a spinlock.
It's not yet clear whether
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
If the queries are complex, this is understable.
The queries used for this comparison are trivial. There's only one table
involved and there are no joins. It's testing very low-level aspects of
performance.
--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could we not use the bogus range to calculate the histogram estimate
but apply the LIKE pattern directly to the most-frequent-values
instead of applying the bogus range? Or would that be too much code
re-organization for now?
We have already done that
On Nov 9, 2007 5:33 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
he's got no MCVs, presumably because the field
is unique.
It is. The ancestors field contains the current folder itself so the
id of the folder (which is the primary key) is in it.
--
Guillaume
---(end of
Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
around ownership of memory cache lines in case of a spinlock.
It's not yet clear
On Nov 9, 2007 10:40 AM, Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
around ownership
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for work_mem have nothing
Campbell, Lance wrote:
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:11:18 -0500 (EST)
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
If the queries are complex, this is understable.
The queries used for this comparison are trivial. There's only one table
involved and there are no joins. It's
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Not atm. Until new benchmarks are published comparing AMD's new
quad-core with Intel's ditto, Intel has the edge.
http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
For 8 cores, it appears AMD has the lead, read this (stolen from
another thread):
Wow. That is a nice logging feature in 8.3!
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu
-Original Message-
From: Bill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November
On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only
reason to
use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to get more capacity out of the same drives.
Maybe you can't, but I can. I guess I have better toys than you :-)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
Campbell, Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
8.2 and
On Nov 9, 2007 12:08 PM, Campbell, Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
Trial and error. Note
It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for over 8
years, I am still learning things.
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu
-Original Message-
From:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for over 8
years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it figured
out, somebody will come along and improve it in
On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for
over 8
years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it
Tom,
Just to confirm you that your last commit fixed the problem:
lbo=# explain analyze select * from cms_items where ancestors LIKE '1062/%';
QUERY PLAN
On Nov 9, 2007 2:38 PM, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I imagine in a few years, hardly anyone using postgresql will remember
the ancient art of having either apostrophes in a row inside your
plpgsql functions...
Speaking of that devil, I started working with Postgres mere months
We've had our PostgreSQL 8.1.4 installation configured to autovacuum
since January, but I suspect it might not be doing anything. Perhaps I
can determine what happens through the log files? Is there a summary of
which when to log settings in postgresql.conf should be set to get at
least
David Crane wrote:
We've had our PostgreSQL 8.1.4 installation configured to autovacuum
since January, but I suspect it might not be doing anything. Perhaps I
can determine what happens through the log files? Is there a summary of
which when to log settings in postgresql.conf should be set
Pepe Barbe wrote:
Hello,
I am having an issue on PostgreSQL 8.0.12. In the past we had
performance issues with the query planner for queries on some tables
where we knew we had indexes and it was doing a sequential scan, and for
this reason we issue SET enable_seqscan = FALSE for some
29 matches
Mail list logo
