I have a client that is testing an internal data platform, and they
were happy with PostgreSQL until they tried to join views - at that
time they discovered PostgreSQL was not using the indexes, and the
queries took 24 hours to execute as a result.
Is this a known issue, or is this possibly a
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:00:59 +0100, Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've downloaded the latest release (PostgreSQL 8.0) for windows.
Installation was OK, but I have tried to restore a database.
It had more than ~100.000 records. Usually I use PostgreSQL
under Linux,
Just a quick shout-out to Mark, as you provided the winning answer. I
found numerous mailing list discussions and web pages, but all were
either fragmented or out of date.
Again, many thanks!
-- Mitch
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:08:58 +1300, Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in
Hi gang,
I just inherited a FreeBSD box, and it is horribly sick. So we moved
everything to a new machine (power supply failures) and finally got
stuff running again.
Ok, for two days (rimshot)
Here are the two problems, and for the life of me I cannot find any
documentation on either:
1)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build the
farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on it
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RAID 10 will typically always outperform RAID 5 with the same HD config.
Isn't RAID10 just RAID5 mirrored? How does that speed up performance?
Or am I missing something?
-- Mitch
---(end of
You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called RAID
10 plus 1, and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
overzealous salesman ;-)
Thanks for the clarification!
- Mitch
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:19:04 -0500, Madison Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Madison Kelly wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:20:48 +0100, Matt Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is very true. Client side caching is an enormous win for apps, but it
requires quite a lot of logic, triggers to update last-modified fields on
relevant tables, etc etc. Moving some of this logic to the DB would
