On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:21:29 +0100, I wrote:
>Populate this table with
> INSERT INTO idmap
> SELECT id, id, true
> FROM t;
This should be
INSERT INTO idmap
SELECT DISTINCT id, id, true
FROM t;
Servus
Manfred
---(end of broadc
"Marinos J. Yannikos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Trout wrote:
>> Remember that it is going to allocate 800MB per sort.
> I didn't know that it always allocates the full amount of memory
> specificed in the configuration
It doesn't ... but it could use *up to* that much before starting to
Jeff Trout wrote:
Remember that it is going to allocate 800MB per sort. It is not "you
can allocate up to 800MB, so if you need 1 meg, use one meg". Some
queries may end up having a few sort steps.
I didn't know that it always allocates the full amount of memory
specificed in the configuratio
On Feb 14, 2004, at 9:02 PM, Marinos J. Yannikos wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
800MB for sort mem? Are you sure you typed that correctly? You
must be counting on not having a lot of concurrent queries. It sure
will speed up index updating, though!
800MB is correct, yes... There are usually onl
800MB is correct, yes... There are usually only 10-30 postgres processes
active (imagine 5-10 people working on the web front-end while cron
jobs access the db occasionally). Very few queries can use such large
amounts of memory for sorting, but they do exist.
But remember that means that if yo
Josh Berkus wrote:
800MB for sort mem? Are you sure you typed that correctly? You must be
counting on not having a lot of concurrent queries. It sure will speed up
index updating, though!
800MB is correct, yes... There are usually only 10-30 postgres processes
active (imagine 5-10 people
Marinos, while you are busy answering my first set of questions :-),
here is an idea that might help even out resource consumption.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:34 +0100, "Marinos J. Yannikos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>begin transaction;
> delete from t where id=5;
> insert into t (id,...) valu
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:34 +0100, "Marinos J. Yannikos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm looking for ideas that might improve the interactive performance of
>the system, without slowing down the updates too much.
IOW, you could accept slower updates. Did you actually try and throttle
down the i
Marinos,
> shared_buffers=10
> (I tried many values, this seems to work well for us - 12GB RAM)
> wal_buffers=500
> sort_mem=80
> checkpoint_segments=16
> effective_cache_size=100
> etc.
800MB for sort mem? Are you sure you typed that correctly? You must be
counting on not having
