>> Why would they implement their own client? Did they have to do something
>> special in their client to
>> make it safe?
>
> I think it is mostly a performance issue. Each backend mounts its own copy
> of the data files it needs.
I personally would never put PostgreSQL on an NFS share on Li
OK, thank you very much. I've tried similar query but with very few rows
matching. In this case index was present in the plan.
BR,
Grzegorz Olszewski
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:31:38 -0500
> From: stho...@optionshouse.com
> To: grzegorz.olszew...@outlook.com; rumman...@gmail.com
> CC: pgsql-per
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I just learned that NFS does not use a file system cache on the client
> side.
>
That's ... incorrect. NFS is cache-capable. NFSv3 (I think? It may have
been v2) started sending metadata on file operations that was intended to
allow for clien
On 05/28/2014 04:59 AM, Grzegorz Olszewski wrote:
There is about 500,000 rows and about 500 new rows each business day.
About 96% of rows meet given conditions, that is, count shoud be about
480,000.
Heikki is right on this. Indexes are not a magic secret sauce that are
always used simply be
On 05/28/2014 12:59 PM, Grzegorz Olszewski wrote:
random_page_cost = 4.0
seq_page_cost = 1.0
There is about 500,000 rows and about 500 new rows each business day.
About 96% of rows meet given conditions, that is, count shoud be about 480,000.
When such a large percentage of the rows match, a
random_page_cost = 4.0
seq_page_cost = 1.0
There is about 500,000 rows and about 500 new rows each business day.
About 96% of rows meet given conditions, that is, count shoud be about 480,000.
BR,
Grzegorz Olszewski
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:14:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't ta
Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> All that said, there has always been a recommendation of caution around
>>> using NFS as a backing store for PG, or any RDBMS..
>>
>> I know that Oracle recommends it - they even built an NFS client
>> into their database server to make the most of it.
>
> Last I h
John Melesky wrote:
>> I just learned that NFS does not use a file system cache on the client side.
>
> That's ... incorrect. NFS is cache-capable. NFSv3 (I think? It may have been
> v2) started sending
> metadata on file operations that was intended to allow for client-side
> caches. NFSv4 adde
