On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0200 (BRST)
alexandre :: aldeia digital [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache =
10
Well, I'm assuming you meant 1GB of ram, not 1MB :)
Check a ps auxw to see what is running. Perhaps X is running
Jeff wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0200 (BRST)
alexandre :: aldeia digital [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache =
10
Well, I'm assuming you meant 1GB of ram, not 1MB :)
Check a ps auxw to see what is running. Perhaps X is
Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
1 GB RAM :)
The stock kernels are not the same, HyperThreading enabled. 80
simultaneous connections. sort_mem = 4096
I will compile my own kernel on this weekend, and I will report
to the list after.
Thank's all
Alexandre
Also are two kernels exactly same? In my
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0200, alexandre :: aldeia digital wrote:
Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
1 GB RAM :)
The stock kernels are not the same, HyperThreading enabled. 80
Some people have reported that things actually slow down with HT
enabled. Have you tried turning it off?
A
--
Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig of memory. And it is only 50% as
fast as my old server which was a dual AMD MP 1400's with a 45gb raid
Jeff wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:31:19 -0600
Rob Sell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this
performance hit when using HT, I have what should all rights be a
pretty fast server, dual 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig
of memory. And it
Yet another question.. thanks to everyone responding to all these so far.. ;)
This one is basically.. given I have a big table already in COPY format,
about 28 million rows, all keys guaranteed to be unique, I'm trying to find
out which of the following will get the import finished the fastest:
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just for an additional viewpoint. I'm finishing up a project based on FreeBSD
and PostgreSQL. The target server is a Dual 2.4G Intel machine. I have tested
the application with hyperthreading enabled and disabled. To all appearances,
enabling
Allen,
a) CREATE TABLE with no indexes or keys. Run the COPY (fast, ~30min), then
CREATE INDEX on each column it's needed on, and ALTER TABLE for the pk and
each fk needed.
Did you ANALYZE after the copy?
If there isn't a significant difference between all of them, performance
wise, I
Nope, still 7.3.4 here.. I am very excited about 7.4 though.. almost as
excited as I am about FreeBSD 5.x going -STABLE.. it's a close race
between the two..
I'll keep this in mind for when I update though, thanks.
At 11:23 10/31/2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
If it is 7.4 beta 5 or later, I would
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:37, Greg Stark wrote:
My understanding is that the case where HT hurts is precisely your case. When
you have two real processors with HT the kernel will sometimes schedule two
jobs on the two virtual processors on the same real processor leaving the two
virtual
is there any way to update the stats inside a transaction? what i have is
something like:
select count(*) from foo;
- 0
begin;
copy foo from '/tmp/foo'; -- about 100k rows
-- run some queries on foo which perform horribly because the stats
-- are way off (100k rows v. 0 rows)
commit;
it
begin;
analyze foo;
ERROR: ANALYZE cannot run inside a BEGIN/END block
i am using version 7.2.3.
Time to upgrade. 7.3 / 7.4 allows this to happen.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi!
I haven´t really tested it on Slackware 9.1. But i am running
Postgresql now for over two years on various Slackware versions.
My current server is running on Slackware 8.0 with a lot of packages
(especially the core libs) upgraded to slack 9.1 packages.
I had never problems with postgresql
Chester Kustarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it seems that you cannot run analyze inside a transaction:
You can in 7.3.* ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the
Well Sorry everyone ,
The problem was tracked down to a silly
datatype mismatch between two join columns
in table Groups(instance) and Tickets(id)
(int vs varchar )
7.4b5 is automatically taking care of this
mismatch hence it was getting executed there.
But , The problem is will this
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:28:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does xfs_freeze work on red hat 7.3?
It works on any kernel with XFS (it talks directly to XFS).
cheers.
--
Nathan
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at
17 matches
Mail list logo
