Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
have a new set of servers coming in -- Dual Xeon E5620's, 96GB RAM,
18 spindles (1 RAID1 for OS -- SATA, 12 disk RAID10 for data -- SAS,
RAID-1 for logs -- SAS, 2 hot spares SAS).
You didn't mention the RAID controller and its cache setup. That's a
critical
Please reply to the list with list business.
On 01/31/2011 03:22 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
On 1/31/2011 7:28 AM, Lew wrote:
That seems a little harsh.
Oh? How so?
You post to a discussion group but want to
suppress discussion?
No, I just want to stick to the subject. My motivation for doing
Greg,
Thank you very much for your quick response.
The servers are using Areca 1600 series controllers with battery backup and 2GB
cache.
I really enjoyed your book (actually, both of the books your company
published). Found them extremely helpful and they filled a lot of gaps in my
There are approximately 50 tables which get updated with almost 100%
records updated every 5 minutes - what is a good number of autovacuum
processes to have on these? The current server I am replacing only has
3 of them but I think I may gain a benefit from having more.
Watch
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 05:18:15PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
What happens if you change the
left join event.origin on event.id = origin.eventid
into
join event.origin on event.id = origin.eventid
?
The EXISTS() requires that origin is
Dear list,
Is there an exhaustive list of what takes what locks and how long they last?
I'm asking because we just had some trouble doing a hot db change to an
8.3.6 system. I know it is an old version but it is what I have to work
with. You can reproduce it like so:
First:
DROP TABLE IF
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Did anyone try using shake while the cluster is active? Any problems
with corruption or data loss? I ran the thing on my home directory and
nothing was broken. I didn't develop any performance test, so cannot
vouch for the effectiveness of the procedure. Did anyone play
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Did anyone try using shake while the cluster is active? Any problems
with corruption or data loss? I ran the thing on my home directory and
nothing was broken. I didn't develop any performance test, so
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
This confused me. ?If we are assuing the data is in
effective_cache_size, why are we adding sequential/random page cost to
the query cost routines?
See the comments for
Instead of something like 'shake' (which more or less works, even
though it doesn't use fallocate and friends) I frequently use either
CLUSTER (which is what Greg Smith is suggesting) or a series of ALTER
TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN... which rewrites the table. With PG 9 perhaps
VACUUM FULL is more
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Grant Johnson gr...@amadensor.com wrote:
Does vacuum full rewrite the whole table, or only the blocks with free
space?
The whole table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-performance
On 01/02/11 10:57, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Robert, Mark,
I have not been able to reproduce this issue in a clean test on 9.0. As
a result, I now think that it was related to the FSM being too small on
the user's 8.3 instance,
On 2/1/2011 6:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Whether or not it's bad application design, it's ubiquitous, and we
should make it work as best we can, IMNSHO. This often generates
complaints about Postgres, and if we really plan for world domination
this needs to be part of it.
There are many
On 31/01/11 17:38, Mladen Gogala wrote:
Mark Felder wrote:
Why do you feel the need to defrag your *nix box?
Let's stick to the original question and leave my motivation for some
other time. Have you used the product? If you have, I'd be happy to
hear about your experience with it.
We're building a new database box. With the help of Gregory Smith's
book, we're benchmarking the box: We want to know that we've set it up
right, we want numbers to go back to if we have trouble later, and we
want something to compare our _next_ box against. What I'd like to know
is, are the
Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
There are approximately 50 tables which get updated with almost 100%
records updated every 5 minutes -- what is a good number of autovacuum
processes to have on these? The current server I am replacing only
has 3 of them but I think I may gain a benefit from
Wayne Conrad wrote:
We're building a new database box. With the help of Gregory Smith's
book, we're benchmarking the box: We want to know that we've set it up
right, we want numbers to go back to if we have trouble later, and we
want something to compare our _next_ box against.
Do you not
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Mladen Gogala mladen.gog...@vmsinfo.comwrote:
On 2/1/2011 6:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Whether or not it's bad application design, it's ubiquitous, and we
should make it work as best we can, IMNSHO. This often generates
complaints about Postgres, and if we
Samuel Gendler wrote:
Don't listen to him. He's got an oracle bias.
And bad sinuses, too.
Slashdot already announced that NoSQL is actually going to dominate
the world, so postgres has already lost that battle. Everything
postgres devs do now is just an exercise in relational
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Mladen Gogala mladen.gog...@vmsinfo.comwrote:
Samuel Gendler wrote:
Don't listen to him. He's got an oracle bias.
And bad sinuses, too.
Slashdot already announced that NoSQL is actually going to dominate the
world, so postgres has already lost that
20 matches
Mail list logo
