(Pardon my replying two two replies at once, I only get the digest and
this was easier).
Michael Stone wrote:
[...]
Well, that's what you'd expect. But a first time 70MB fetch on a freshly
rebooted system took just as long as all secondary times. (Took over a minute
to fetch, which is too l
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, that's what you'd expect. But a first time 70MB fetch on a freshly
> > rebooted system took just as long as all secondary times. (Took over a
> > minute to fetch, which is too long for my needs, at least on secondary
> > attempts).
That's not
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:13:27PM -0400, Jeffrey Tenny wrote:
The system for testing was 512MB
That's definately *not* a "large ram" system. If you're reading a subset
of data that totals 70MB I'm going to guess that your data set is larger
than or at least a large fraction of 512MB.
addition
John A Meinel wrote:
> Well, first off, the general recommendation is probably that 7.3 is
really old, and you should try to upgrade to at least 7.4, though
recommended to 8.0.
There have been issues with each release that led me to wait.
Even now I'm waiting for some things to settle in the 8
Jeffrey Tenny wrote:
> I have a largely table-append-only application where most transactions
> are read-intensive and many are read-only. The transactions may span
> many tables, and in some cases might need to pull 70 MB of data out of a
> couple of the larger tables.
>
>
> In 7.3, I don't seem
I have a largely table-append-only application where most transactions
are read-intensive and many are read-only. The transactions may span
many tables, and in some cases might need to pull 70 MB of data out of a
couple of the larger tables.
In 7.3, I don't seem to see any file system or oth
