Just curious, but does anyone have an idea of what we are capable of? I
realize that size of record would affect things, as well as hardware, but
if anyone has some ideas on max, with 'record size', that would be
appreciated ...
Thanks ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org
Do to moderator error (namely, mine), several hundred messages (spread
across all the lists) were just approved ...
Sorry for all the incoming junk :(
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy
on table (cost=0.00..400735.90 rows=993939 width=278)
Filter: (priority = -1)
(2 rows)
But, ti will if I try 'priority = -2' ... what is teh threshhold for using
the index? obviously 10% of the records is too high ...
thanks ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Se
at a value being inserted is one
of a few possible values, with that list of values rarely (if ever)
changing, so havng a 'flexible list' REFERENCED seems relatively overkill
...
Thoughts, or pointers to a doc that disproves, or proves, what I believe?
Thanks ...
----
Marc G. Fourni
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:23:19AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Which is faster, where the list involved is fixed? My thought is that
since it doesn't have to check a seperate table, the CHECK itself should
be the faster of the two, but I can&#
Not having found anything so far, does anyone know of, and can point me
to, either tools, or articles, that talk about doing tuning based on the
information that this sort of information can help with?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email
ll fit comfortably into RAM then you may be
fine.
We host VPSs here (http://www.hub.org) and don't use the 'single file,
virtual file system' to put them into ... it must depend on where you
host?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Em
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Someone on this list has one of those 'confirm your email' filters on their
mailbox, which is bouncing back messages ... this is an attempt to try and
narrow down the address that is causing this ...
- --
Marc G. FournierHub.O
Just curious, but Bruce(?) mentioned that apparently a 32k block size was
found to show a 15% improvement ... care to run one more test? :)
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> Ok... simple tests have completed. Here are some numbers.
>
> FreeBSD 4.8
> PG 7.4b2
> 4GB Ram
> Dual Xeon 2.4GHz
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Vivek Khera wrote:
> > the restore complained often about checkpoints occurring every few
> > seconds:
> >
> > Sep 2 11:57:14 d02 postgres[49721]: [5-1] LOG: checkpoints are occurring too
> > frequently (15 seconds apart)
> > Sep 2 11:57:14 d02 post
Table structure is simple:
CREATE TABLE traffic_logs (
company_id bigint,
ip_id bigint,
port integer,
bytes bigint,
runtime timestamp without time zone
);
runtime is 'day of month' ...
I need to summarize the month, per company, with a query as:
explain analyze SELECT ts.co
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -> Index Scan using tl_month on traffic_logs ts (cost=0.00..30763.02 rows=8213
> > width=16) (actual time=0.29..5562.25 rows=462198 loops=1)
> > Index C
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Interesting that we get the row count estimate for this index scan so
> > wrong -- I believe this is the root of the problem. Hmmm... I would
> > guess that the optimizer stats we have for estimating the selectivi
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I'd say your machine is very low on available RAM, particularly sort_mem.
> The steps which are taking a long time are:
Here's the server:
last pid: 42651; load averages: 1.52, 0.96, 0.88
up 28+07:43:33 20:35:44
307 processes: 2 running,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
> Actually you might be able to get the same effect using function indexes
> like:
>
> create index i on traffic_log (month_trunc(runtime), company_id)
had actually thought of that one ... is it something that is only
available in v7.4?
ams=# create index
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> > explain analyze SELECT ts.company_id, company_name, SUM(ts.bytes) AS total_traffic
> > FROM company c, traffic_logs ts
> >WHERE c.company_id = ts.compa
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just as a side note, just doing a straight scan for the records, with no
> > SUM()/GROUP BY involved, with the month_trunc() index is still >8k msec:
Cond: (word_id = -2038735111)
-> Index Scan using url_rec_id on url (cost=0.00..4.06 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=0.059..0.066 rows=1 loops=2900)
Index Cond: (url.rec_id = "outer".url_id)
Filter: ((url || ''::text) ~~ 'http://archives.
as its based on the
same kernel ...
Back of my mind, I *think* it was these sysctl variables:
kern.timecounter.method: 0
kern.timecounter.hardware: i8254
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 761566
19 matches
Mail list logo
