Pallav,
> Yes, you are right this table is heavily updated, the whole database
> size is of 1.5 gigs, right now i have default fsm settings how much
> should i increase max_fsm_pages and max_fsm_relations to ?
1) fix the table (see below)
2) run the system for another day
3) run VACUUM FULL ANA
Go for Slony its best thing to start with.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 06:38:16 -0800 (PST), sarlav kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Which is the best available PG replication tool in market now?
>
> From searching on the internet, I found some resources on the following
> tools u
Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") mumbled into her
beard:
> sarlav kumar wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Which is the best available PG replication tool in market now?
>
> There is no "best", there is only best for your situation. The two
> most supported are:
>
>
>> * Mammoth
Hi,
(B
(Bwithout knowing much about your system, it seems to me that the current
(Bstatus of a client should be represented by a status code on the client
(Brecord. History is the list of *past* status codes. The full history,
(Bincluding the current status of a client would be obtained usi
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:05:55PM -0200, Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Before writing this mail, I'd researched a little about this topic, and
> got some opinions from guys like Fabien Pascal, who argues that logical
> design should be separated from physical design, and other sources. As
>
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:24 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware lately.
> It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the Dell servers.
>
> Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another likely problem is that you
>> need to increase the FSM settings (how big is your whole database?)
>>
> Yes, you are right this table is heavily updated, the whole database
> size is of 1.5 gigs, right now i have default fsm se
Tom Lane wrote:
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a table in my production database which has 500k rows and
from the pg_class it shows the number of "relpages" of
around 750K for this table, the same table copied to a test database
shows "relpages" as 35k. I run vacuumdb on th
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Ok, I am starting to strongly suspect the statistics collector of
>> various kinds of malfeasance.
> OK, the big problem is that we are nearing RC1. We would like some
> feedback on this as soon as possible. A major Win32 clean
Hi Frank,
Thanks! for the quick reply, here are my current default fsm setting .
max_fsm_pages = 2 and max_fsm_relations = 1000
What are the appropriates settings for these parameters ? are there
any guidlines ? postgres docs doesnt give much information on setting
these values.
Th
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:32:53 -0500
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks! for the quick reply, here are my current default fsm
> setting .
> max_fsm_pages = 2 and max_fsm_relations = 1000
>What are the appropriates settings for these parameters ? are
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a table in my production database which has 500k rows and
> from the pg_class it shows the number of "relpages" of
> around 750K for this table, the same table copied to a test database
> shows "relpages" as 35k. I run vacuumdb on the whole
>
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> > > Linux to scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP
> > > scaled. It reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low
> > > traffic servers.
> >
> > That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further inv
> > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> > Linux to scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP
> > scaled. It reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low
> > traffic servers.
>
> That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further investigation so far
> isn't it? Win3
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:11:46 -0500
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have a table in my production database which has 500k rows and
> from the pg_class it shows the number of "relpages" of
> around 750K for this table, the same table copied to a test database
> shows "rel
Hi ,
I have a table in my production database which has 500k rows and
from the pg_class it shows the number of "relpages" of
around 750K for this table, the same table copied to a test database
shows "relpages" as 35k. I run vacuumdb on the whole
database (not on the table individually but the
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:43:10PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Also, if choice of RAID controller is an option, I'd definitely
suggest
> > 3ware. They are cheap, have excellent linux support (including open
> > source drivers)
>
> The drivers are open source, but the management tools are n
Well, I've personally seen IBM's that were slower than Dell's, and
Dell's aren't particularly fast.
I'm currently trying to find a name brand computer that is as fast as
something I could build myself. So far the HP looks like the fastest,
but still not as fast as a machine built from scratch
S
Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
Hi,
Before writing this mail, I'd researched a little about this topic,
and got some opinions from guys like Fabien Pascal, who argues that
logical design should be separated from physical design, and other
sources. As this is not fact, I'm writing to you guys, that make
th
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 09:16 -0200, Rodrigo Carvalhaes wrote:
>
> I am using PostgreSQL with a proprietary ERP software in Brazil. The
> database have around 1.600 tables (each one with +/- 50 columns).
...
> max_fsm_pages = 2
> max_fsm_relations = 1000
Hi,
I doubt that this will improve y
Hi guys,
I have 2 big databases on the same system. They are logically not
connected, separate.
I want to keep them separate. Do you think it is better to use the same
PostgreSQL server using a different location (on different disks) for each
one of them, or a separate PostgreSQL server f
Hi,
Before writing this mail, I'd researched a little about this topic, and
got some opinions from guys like Fabien Pascal, who argues that logical
design should be separated from physical design, and other sources. As
this is not fact, I'm writing to you guys, that make things work in real
world.
On December 2, 2004 06:38 am, sarlav kumar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Which is the best available PG replication tool in market now?
>
> From searching on the internet, I found some resources on the following
> tools used for replication :
>
>
>postgres R
>Usogres
>eRServer/Rserv/Dbmirror
>
I've been at companies where we've had good experiences with Penguin
Computing servers.
http://www.penguincomputing.com/
I always evaluate their offerings when considering server purchases or
recommendations.
-tfo
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
http://www
sarlav kumar wrote:
Hi all,
Which is the best available PG replication tool in market now?
There is no "best", there is only best for your situation. The two
most supported are:
* Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator
* Slony-I
Which one of these is a good option for replicating Postgres 7.3.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:43:10PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Also, if choice of RAID controller is an option, I'd definitely suggest
> 3ware. They are cheap, have excellent linux support (including open
> source drivers)
The drivers are open source, but the management tools are not. (This is
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 9:37 pm, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> Hi Thomas!
>
> Thomas> Look at the ACTUAL TIME. It dropped from 0.029ms (using the index
> Thomas> scan) to 0.009ms (using a sequential scan.)
>
> Thomas> Index scans are not always faster, and the planner/optimizer knows
> Thomas>
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:25:03PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I use Supermicro and have liked them. They make motherboards and systems.
Many of their rack-based servers seem to be near-impossible to fit in a rack,
though. :-) (Many of their 4U servers are just desktop cases which you can
turn
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:07 +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> Hi Thomas!
>
> Thomas> Look at the ACTUAL TIME. It dropped from 0.029ms (using the index
> Thomas> scan) to 0.009ms (using a sequential scan.)
>
> Thomas> Index scans are not always faster, and the planner/optimizer knows
> Tho
Hi Thomas!
Thomas> Look at the ACTUAL TIME. It dropped from 0.029ms (using the index
Thomas> scan) to 0.009ms (using a sequential scan.)
Thomas> Index scans are not always faster, and the planner/optimizer knows
Thomas> this. VACUUM ANALYZE is best run when a large proportion of dat
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:07:17PM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> While I agree that generally this is true, look how stupid this
> behavior looks in this particular case: A developer creates a table
> and index, knowing that the table will be large and will be intensively
> used. An admin runs '
Dave Cramer wrote:
Well, I've personally seen IBM's that were slower than Dell's, and
Dell's aren't particularly fast.
I'm currently trying to find a name brand computer that is as fast as
something I could build myself. So far the HP looks like the fastest,
but still not as fast as a machine b
Hi all,
Which is the best available PG replication tool in market now?
From searching on the internet, I found some resources on the following tools used for replication :
postgres R
Usogres
eRServer/Rserv/Dbmirror
PgReplicator
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator
Slony-I
Which one of these
Josh Berkus wrote:
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
vendors for hardware; they won't home-build. For those people, what vendors
do others on this list recommend? What have been your good/bad experiences?
I've had very good experiences with IBM hardwar
34 matches
Mail list logo
