Jayadevan M wrote:
It is mentioned that table data blocks have data about tuple visibility and hence table scans
are always necessary. So how does PostgreSQL reduce the number of blocks
to be read by using indexes?
To be useful, a query utilizing an index must be selective: it must
only
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Regards,
Jayadevan
DISCLAIMER:
The information in this e-mail and any attachment is intended only for
the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly
On 06/22/10 16:40, Greg Smith wrote:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
raid: serveRAID M5014 SAS/SATA controller
Do the performant servers have a different RAID card? This one has
terrible performance, and could alone be the source of your issue. The
ServeRAID cards are slow in general, and
Craig, Russel,
I appreciate your help.
Thanks.
2010/6/22 Russell Smith mr-r...@pws.com.au
On 22/06/10 00:42, Sergio Charpinel Jr. wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
= explain analyze SELECT ip_src, port_src, ip_dst, port_dst,
tcp_flags, ip_proto,SUM(bytes),SUM(packets),SUM(flows) FROM
* Ivan Voras:
On the other hand, RAID10 is simple enough that soft-RAID
implementations should be more than adequate - any ideas why a dedicated
card has it slow?
Barrier support on RAID10 seems to require some smallish amount of
non-volatile storage which supports a high number of write
On 06/23/10 14:00, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Ivan Voras:
On the other hand, RAID10 is simple enough that soft-RAID
implementations should be more than adequate - any ideas why a dedicated
card has it slow?
Barrier support on RAID10 seems to require some smallish amount of
non-volatile
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 06/23/10 14:00, Florian Weimer wrote:
Barrier support on RAID10 seems to require some smallish amount of
non-volatile storage which supports a high number of write operations
per second, so a software-only solution might not be available.
If I
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/23/10 14:00, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Ivan Voras:
On the other hand, RAID10 is simple enough that soft-RAID
implementations should be more than adequate - any ideas why a dedicated
card has it slow?
Barrier support
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/22/10 16:40, Greg Smith wrote:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
raid: serveRAID M5014 SAS/SATA controller
Do the performant servers have a different RAID card? This one has
terrible performance, and could alone be the
Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
PasteBin for the vmstat output
http://pastebin.com/mpHCW9gt
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah
mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear List ,
I observe that my postgresql (ver 8.4.2) dedicated server has
turned cpu bound
The combination index works great. Would adding the combination index
guarantee that the optimizer will choose that index for these kind of
queries involving the columns in the combination. I verified a couple
of times and it picked the right index. Just wanted to make sure it
does that
Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
The combination index works great. Would adding the combination
index guarantee that the optimizer will choose that index for
these kind of queries involving the columns in the combination. I
verified a couple of times and it picked the right index. Just
On 6/23/10, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
PasteBin for the vmstat output
http://pastebin.com/mpHCW9gt
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah
mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear List ,
I observe that my
Your response somehow landed in the subject line, apparently
truncated. I'll extract that to the message body and reply to what
made it through.
Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly many thanks for responding. I am concerned because the
load averages have increased and
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
The largest consequence I can see at the moment is that when I get a
full vacuum (for preventing transaction-id wraparound) it would be
I assume you mean the automatic database wide vacuum. I don't think
8.4 and
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com
wrote:
The largest consequence I can see at the moment is that when I get a
full vacuum (for preventing transaction-id wraparound) it would be
I
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com
wrote:
The largest consequence I can see at the moment is that when I
I have a situation where we are limited by the chassis on the box (and cost).
We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
We would like to maximize storage on the large disks .
Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks and use
the
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a situation where we are limited by the chassis on the box (and cost).
We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
We would like to maximize storage on the large disks .
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even
a postmaster crash, which is a new non-durable behavior.
Also, we just added
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
b) Eliminate checkpointing
c) Turn off the background writer
d) Have PostgreSQL refuse to restart after a crash and instead call an
exteral script
2010/6/23 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even
a postmaster crash, which is a new
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/23 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even
a
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is required for even
a
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
If we elimiate WAL logging, that means a reinstall is
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we need a system-wide setting for that. I believe that
the unlogged tables I'm working on will handle that case.
Aren't they going to be truncated at startup? If the
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we need a system-wide setting for that. ?I believe that
the unlogged tables I'm working on will handle that case.
Aren't they going to be truncated
28 matches
Mail list logo
