On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:06:11 -0500
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 10:56 AM, Dave Dutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know about that. There are times when it is the right
> > plan:
>
> Agreed. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with nested-loop join as long
>
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:20:02 -0500
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In 7.4, using 25% is often too high a setting for it to handle well,
> and the practical useful maximum is usually under 10,000
> shared_buffers, and often closer to 1,000 to 5,000
Scott - interesting reply. Is this
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:41:49 +0200
Tomáš Vondra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually we wrote something similar as pgfounie was not as nice as
> today, at that time (2005] - you can find that tool on
> http://opensource.pearshealthcyber.cz/. Actually I'm working on a
> complete rewrite of th
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:03:07 -0500
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's kind of silly to tell PostgreSQL that its total cache space is
> 1 pages when you've got more than that in shared buffers plus
> all that OS cache space. Try something around 285000 pages for
> effective_cac
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:19:22 -0500
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to see examples of what's slow, including explain analyze
> output for slow queries. Also a brief explanation of the type of
> load your database server is seeing. I.e. is it a lot of little
> transactions, mo
We have a pretty busy linux server running postgres 8.1.4, waiting to
upgrade until 8.3 to avoid dump/restoring twice.
# cat /proc/meminfo
total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 3704217600 3592069120 1121484800 39460864 2316271616
Swap: 2516918272 270336 251664
