Hi Scott,
Yes, May i know any particular reason for behaving this. Are its looking for
any consistency. I havnt got any clear picture here.
Could you Please explain this..
Thanks & Regards
Raghavendra
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tad
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Tadipathri Raghu wrote:
As per the documentation, one page is 8kb, when i create a table with int as
one column its 4 bytes. If i insert 2000 rows, it should be in one page only
as its 8kb, but its extending vastly as expected. Example shown below,
taking the previous example
Hi Mattew,
Thank you for the information.
Once again, I like to thank each and everyone in this thread for there
ultimate support.
Regards
Raghavendra
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Tadipathri Raghu wrote:
>
>> As per the documentation, one page
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/storage-page-layout.html for
all of what is taking up the space. Short version:
Per block overhead is > 24 bytes
Per row overhead is 23 bytes + some alignment loss + the null bitmap if you
have nullable columns
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:24 AM, r
PostgreSQL 8.4.3
OS: Linux Red Hat 4.x
I changed my strategy with PostgreSQL recently to use a large segment of
memory for shared buffers with the idea of caching disk blocks. How can
I see how much memory PostgreSQL is using for this?
I tried:
ps aux | grep post | sort -k4
This l
Hi,
I am querying a Postgresql 8.3 database table that has approximately 22 million
records. The (explain analyze) query is listed below:
gdr_gbrowse_live=> explain analyze SELECT
f.id,f.object,f.typeid,f.seqid,f.start,f.end,f.strand FROM feature as f, name
as n WHERE (n.id=f.id AND lower(n.n
Campbell, Lance wrote:
Or is there some way to ask PostgreSQL how much memory are you using
to cache disk blocks currently?
You can install contrib/pg_buffercache into each database and count how
many used blocks are there. Note that running queries using that
diagnostic tool is really i
randa...@bioinfo.wsu.edu writes:
> I can see I am hitting an index using an index that I created using the
> varchar_pattern_ops setting. This is very fast and performs like I would
> expect. However, when my application, GBrowse, access the database, I see in
> my slow query log this:
> 2010
Tom,
We are using perl 5.10 with postgresql DBD. Can you point me in the right
direction in terms of unamed and named prepared statements?
Thanks,
Randall Svancara
Systems Administrator/DBA/Developer
Main Bioinformatics Laboratory
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane"
To: randa...@
On 3/29/2010 12:23 PM, randa...@bioinfo.wsu.edu wrote:
Tom,
We are using perl 5.10 with postgresql DBD. Can you point me in the right
direction in terms of unamed and named prepared statements?
Thanks,
Randall Svancara
Systems Administrator/DBA/Developer
Main Bioinformatics Laboratory
---
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been trying to reduce both memory usage and runtime for a query.
> Comments/suggestions gratefully received. Details are at
>
> http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
>
> See particularly Section 1 - Backgro
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to reduce both memory usage and runtime for a query.
Comments/suggestions gratefully received. Details are at
http://bulldog.duhs.duke.edu/~faheem/snppy/opt.pdf
See
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> It's not really too clear to me from reading this what specific
>> questions you're trying to answer.
>
> Quote from opt.{tex/pdf}, Section 1:
>
> "If I have to I can use Section~\ref{ped_hybrid} and
> Section~\ref{tped_hybrid}, but I am left
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
It's not really too clear to me from reading this what specific
questions you're trying to answer.
Quote from opt.{tex/pdf}, Section 1:
"If I have to I can use Section~\ref{ped_hybrid} and
Section
On 3/26/10 4:57 PM, Richard Yen wrote:
> I'm planning on lowering the shared_buffers to a more sane value, like 25GB
> (pgtune recommends this for a Mixed-purpose machine) or less (pgtune
> recommends 14GB for an OLTP machine). However, before I do this (and
> possibly resolve the issue), I was
15 matches
Mail list logo
