> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 18:32, Chris Field wrote:
>> > We are getting ready to spec out a new machine and are wondering about
>> > the wisdom of buying a quad versus a dual processor machine. Seing as
>> > how postgres in not a threaded application, and
ve measured over 200 MB/s reads off these controllers on
3u disk array units. I'm sure I could have gotten more with additional
tuning.
Fred
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
transaction.
I have found that inserts and updates tend to slow down when the database
gets really big. I think it is likely an effect of updating indexes when
the insert or update occurs.
Looking forward to feedback and possibly direction on my lazy index update
question.
TIA,
Fred
Asking the Performance people as well, since I didn't get any answer from
General...
I have been unable to create a multi column index with 2 integers as well,
same error as the one I get with 2 dates.
Thanks
Fred
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fred Janon
Date: Mon, A
One thing I learned after spending about a week comparing the Athlon (2
ghz, 333 mhz frontside bus) and Xeon (2.4 ghz, 266 mhz frontside bus)
platforms was that on average the select queries I was benchmarking ran
30% faster on the Athlon (this was with data cached in memory so may not
apply to the
> We are running into issues with IO saturation obviously. Since this
> thing is only going to get bigger we are looking for some advice on
> how to accommodate DB's of this size.
> Second and more radical, has anyone run
> postgreSQL on the new Apple G5 with an XRaid system? This seems like
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 17:42, William Yu wrote:
> Anjan Dave wrote:
> > We have a Quad-Intel XEON 2.0GHz (1MB cache), 12GB memory, running RH9,
> > PG 7.4.0. There's an internal U320, 10K RPM RAID-10 setup on 4 drives.
> >
> > We are expecting a pretty high load, a few thousands of 'concurrent'
