On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
[…] Perhaps we could let people say
something like WITH x AS FENCE (...) when they want the fencing
behavior, and otherwise assume they don't (but give it to them anyway
if there's a data-modifying operation in there).
Syslog does that, I believe. Have a look at the man page for syslog.conf.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:11 AM, shailesh singh shaileshj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to configure Logging of postgres in such a way that messages of
different severity should be logged in different log file. eg: all
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jian Shi j...@unitrends.com wrote:
Hey,
I’m a new user of PostgreSQL. I found one of my tables is taking
unexpectedly large space:
select
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('archive_files'));
pg_size_pretty
1113 MB
the field “fname”
The potential breakthrough here with the 320 is consumer grade SSD
performance and price paired with high reliability.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Andy angelf...@yahoo.com wrote:
This might be a bit too little too late though. As you mentioned there really
isn't any real performance
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
AFAICT, what's happening in this query is that PostgreSQL's statistics
on the device_nodes and several other tables are slightly out of date
(as in 5% of the table).
What about some manner of query feedback mechanism ( along
I think adding
UNION ALL SELECT 'postgres version', version();
might be a good thing.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
In fact, I wonder whether we shouldn't leave a couple items you've
excluded, since they are sometimes germane
With all
due respect, I consider myself smarter than the optimizer. I'm 6'4, 235LBS
so telling me that you disagree and that I am more stupid than a computer
program, would not be a smart thing to do. Please, do not misunderestimate
me.
I don't see computer programs make thinly veiled
Thank you.
It appears I owe an apology also, for jumping to that conclusion. It
was rash and unfair of me. I am sorry.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Mladen Gogala mladen.gog...@vmsinfo.com wrote:
Justin Pitts wrote:
With all
due respect, I consider myself smarter than the optimizer. I'm
Number of logical CPUs: 16 (4x Quadcore Xeon E5520 @ 2.27GHz)
RAM: 16GB
Concurrent connections (according to our monitoring tool): 7 (min), 74
(avg), 197 (max)
Your current issue may be IO wait, but a connection pool isn't far off
in your future either.
max_connections = 200
work_mem =
If you strictly have an OLTP workload, with lots of simultaneous
connections issuing queries across small chunks of data, then
PostgreSQL would be a good match for SQL server.
This matches my observations. In fact, PostgreSQL's MVCC seems to work
heavily in my favor in OLTP workloads.
On the
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:16 AM, shaiju.ck shaiju...@gmail.com wrote:
[] I have increased the shared_buffres to 1024MB, but no
improvement. I have noticed that the query show shared_buffers always show
8MB.Why is this? Does it mean that changing the shared_buffers in config
file have no
If you alter the default_statistics_target or any of the specific
statistics targets ( via ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS ) , the change
will not have an effect until an analyze is performed.
This is implied by
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/planner-stats.html and
Jason Pitts:
RE: changing default_statistics_target (or via ALTER TABLE SET STATS)
not taking effect until ANALYZE is performed.
I did already know that, but it's probably good to put into this
thread. However, you'll note that this is a temporary table created at
the beginning of a
As others said, RAID6 is RAID5 + a hot spare.
No. RAID6 is NOT RAID5 plus a hot spare.
The original phrase was that RAID 6 was like RAID 5 with a hot spare
ALREADY BUILT IN.
Built-in, or not - it is neither. It is more than that, actually. RAID
6 is like RAID 5 in that it uses parity for
Yes, I know that. I am very familiar with how RAID6 works. RAID5
with the hot spare already rebuilt / built in is a good enough answer
for management where big words like parity might scare some PHBs.
In terms of storage cost, it IS like paying for RAID5 + a hot spare,
but the protection
It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much simpler
approach.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
I find it way much easier to believe such issues
Yes.
On Mar 18, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:12 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote:
It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much
simpler approach.
Do you mean a separate partition/ tablespace for _each_ index built
concurrently
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:52 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote:
FusionIO is publicly claiming 24 years @ 5TB/day on the 80GB SLC device,
which wear levels across 100GB of actual installed capacity.
http://community.fusionio.com/forums/p/34/258
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
I've been hearing bad things from some folks about the quality of the
FusionIO drives from a durability standpoint.
Can you be more specific about that? Durability over what time frame? How many
devices in the sample set? How did FusionIO
warranty they have on the devices.
FusionIO's claim _seems_ credible. I'd love to see some evidence to the
contrary.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote:
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
I've been hearing
Is there any interest in adding that (continual/automatic cluster
order maintenance) to a future release?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Scott Careysc...@richrelevance.com wrote:
If you have a lot of insert/update/delete activity on a table fillfactor can
help.
I don’t believe that postgres
a performance perspective.
IOT in Oracle is a huge win in some cases, but a bit more clunky for
others
than Clustered Indexes in MSSQL. Both are highly useful.
On 7/16/09 10:52 AM, Justin Pitts justinpi...@gmail.com wrote:
ISTR that is the approach that MSSQL follows.
Storing the full tuple
ISTR that is the approach that MSSQL follows.
Storing the full tuple in an index and not even having a data only
page
would also be an interesting approach to this (and perhaps simpler
than a
separate index file and data file if trying to keep the data in the
order of
the index).
--
You'll almost certainly want to use NTFS.
I suspect you'll want to set the NTFS Allocation Unit Size to 8192 or
some integer multiple of 8192, since I believe that is the pg page
size. XP format dialog will not allow you to set it above 4096, but
the command line format utility will. I do
24 matches
Mail list logo
