On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, John Rouillard wrote:
So swap the memory usage from the OS cache to the postgresql process.
Using 1/4 as a guideline it sounds like 600,000 (approx 4GB) is a
better setting. So I'll try 30 to start (1/8 of memory) and see
what it does to the other processes on the box.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:16:02PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, John Rouillard wrote:
>
> > 2008-04-21 11:36:43 UTC @(2761)i: LOG: checkpoints ... (27 seconds
> > apart)
> > so I changed:
> > checkpoint_segments = 30
> > checkpoint_warning = 150
>
> That's good, but you
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:59AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> John Rouillard wrote:
>
> >We can't do this as we are backfilling a couple of months of data
> >into tables with existing data.
>
> Is this a one off data loading of historic data or an ongoing thing?
Yes it's a one off bulk data l
John Rouillard wrote:
We can't do this as we are backfilling a couple of months of data
into tables with existing data.
Is this a one off data loading of historic data or an ongoing thing?
The only indexes we have to drop are the ones on the primary keys
(there is one non-primary key index
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, John Rouillard wrote:
2008-04-21 11:36:43 UTC @(2761)i: LOG: checkpoints ... (27 seconds apart)
so I changed:
checkpoint_segments = 30
checkpoint_warning = 150
That's good, but you might go higher than 30 for a bulk loading operation
like this, particularly on 8.1
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:53:09PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> John Rouillard wrote:
> >We are running postgresql-8.1.3 under Centos 4
> You should upgrade, at least to the latest minor release of the 8.1
> series (8.1.11), as there has been a bunch of important bug and security
> fixes. O
John Rouillard wrote:
We are running postgresql-8.1.3 under Centos 4
You should upgrade, at least to the latest minor release of the 8.1
series (8.1.11), as there has been a bunch of important bug and security
fixes. Or even better, upgrade to 8.3, which has reduced the storage
size of espec
