On 05/27/2015 12:50 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> Greetings and salutations.
>
> I've got some weirdness.
>
> Current:
> Postgres 9.3.4
> Slony 2.2.3
> CentOS 6.5
>
> Prior running Postgres 9.1.2 w/slony 2.1.3 CentOS 6.2
>
> I found that if I tried to run a vacuum full on 1 table that I recently
>
> On May 27, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with
> various hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks (TPC-C &
> TPC-H).
>
> I’m currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my da
On 05/27/2015 04:24 PM, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote:
Hi,
I’m running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with
various hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks
(TPC-C & TPC-H).
I’m currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my dataset
between runs but
Hi,
I'm running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with various
hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks (TPC-C & TPC-H).
I'm currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my dataset between runs
but this process seems slower than it could be.
Is it poss
Greetings and salutations.
I've got some weirdness.
Current:
Postgres 9.3.4
Slony 2.2.3
CentOS 6.5
Prior running Postgres 9.1.2 w/slony 2.1.3 CentOS 6.2
I found that if I tried to run a vacuum full on 1 table that I recently
reindexed (out of possibly 8 tables) that I get this error:
# vacuum