The complete answer is probably "it depends", but this does not help
much...:-)
I would try out the simple approach first (i.e one 50 million row
table), but read up about :
i) partial indexes and maybe
ii) clustering
iii) think about presorting the data before loading to place "likely to
be a
Duane wrote:
> P.S. I've only just begun using PostgreSQL after having
> used (and still using) DB2 on a mainframe for the past 14
> years. My experience with Unix/Linux is limited to some
> community college classes I've taken but we do have
> a couple of experienced Linux sysadmins on our team.
Joseph Shraibman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> PostgreSQL (< 7.5) won't consider using an indexscan when the predicate
>> involves an integer literal and the column datatype is int2 or int8.
> Is this fixed for 7.5? It isn't checked off on the TODO list at
> http://develope
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> >> PostgreSQL (< 7.5) won't consider using an indexscan when the predicate
> >> involves an integer literal and the column datatype is int2 or int8.
>
> > Is this fixed for 7.5? It isn't checked off on the TO
Well,
Since I haven't seen any other responds, I'll offer a bit of advice and let
others correct me. :)
Your shared buffers may be too big (?). It is much larger than the guide
on varlena.com recommends. All I can suggest is trying some experiments
with halving/doubling the numbers to see w
Tom Lane wrote:
: * JDBC
With JDBC out of the core, I'm not sure why we still have a JDBC section
in the core TODO.
Speaking of which why is the jdbc site so hard to find? For that matter
the new foundry can only be found through the news article on the front
page.
---(e
Guys,
> Oh, you wanted a fix? That seems harder :-(. AFAICS we need a redesign
> that causes less load on the BufMgrLock.
FWIW, we've been pursuing two routes of quick patch fixes.
1) Dave Cramer and I have been testing setting varying rates of spin_delay in
an effort to find a "sweet spot"
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm really curious, BTW, about how all of Jan's changes to buffer
> usage in 7.5 affect this issue. Has anyone tested it on a recent
> snapshot?
Won't help.
(1) Theoretical argument: the problem case is select-only and touches
few enough buffers that it
