x27;m sure
there are improvements that could be made, but overall they don't get in
the way, they do the right thing in the minimal case, and they give the
advanced user a lot more choices about multiple DB instances on the same
machine.
C
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 15:28 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
> I'm trying to tune the memory usage of a new machine that has a -lot- of
> memory in it (32 gigs).
...
>
> shared_buffers = 16GB
Really?
Wow!
Common wisdom in the past has been that values above a couple of hundred
MB will degrade performan
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 10:22 +, Christian Paul B. Cosinas wrote:
> I see.
>
> But How Can I put this in the Cron of my Linux Server?
> I really don't have an idea :)
> What I want to do is to loop around all the databases in my server and
> execute the vacuum of these 3 tables in each tables.
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 03:10 -0700, Jan Aerts wrote:
> Some additional thoughts: what appears to take the most time (i.e.
> account for the highest cost in the explain), is _not_ running the
> function itself (cost=0.00..0.01), but comparing the result from that
> function with the name1 column in t
uld be lost if you did have to restore your data from a day old
backup, so perhaps fsync=false is OK for this particular application.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
-
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net .NZ
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:13 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
> Ok, I finally got some test data together so that others can test
> without installing SA.
>
> The schema and test dataset is over at
> http://www.aptalaska.net/~matt.s/bayes/bayesBenchmark.tar.gz
>
> I have a pretty fast machine w
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:45 -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> I have a small business client that cannot afford high-end/high quality
> RAID cards for their next server. That's a seperate argument/issue right
> there for me, but what the client wants is what the client wants.
>
> Has anyone ran Postgres w
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 14:02 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a similar question about what to choose (either LSI or Adaptec U320),
> but
> plan to use them just for JBOD drivers. I expect to be using either net or
> freebsd. The system CPU will be Opteron. My impression is that both the
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 20:42 -0700, Stacy White wrote:
> We're in the process of buying another Opteron server to run Postgres, and
> based on the suggestions in this list I've asked our IT director to get an
> LSI MegaRaid controller rather than one of the Adaptecs.
>
> But when we tried to place
ID column and the other columns in
your data.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
-
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net .NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/
ge row is (e.g.) 2k then the OID will
only be a very small fraction of the data, and removing it will only
make a small difference.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
-
Andrew @ Cataly
t;.
For real background on this, and calculated recommendations, we'd need
that more detailed output though.
As a quick hack, it's possible that you could improve things by
increasing the samples on relevant columns with some judicious "ALTER
TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET STATI
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
nforcing the unique constraint.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
-
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net .NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/PHYS: Level 2, 15
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 14:14 +0100, Evilio del Rio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have installed the dspam filter
> (http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam) on our mail server
> (RedHat 7.3 Linux with sendmail 8.13 and procmail). I have ~300 users
> with a quite low traffic of 4000 messages/day. So it's
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 12:46 +0530, Antony Paul wrote:
> Hi all,
>I have a table which have more than 20 records. I need to get
> the records which matches like this
>
> where today::date = '2004-11-05';
>
> This is the only condition in the query. There is a btree index on the
> column to
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 16:53 -0400, Anjan Dave wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am dealing with an app here that uses pg to handle a few thousand
> concurrent web users. It seems that under heavy load, the INSERT and
> UPDATE statements to one or two specific tables keep queuing up, to
> the count of 150+
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 11:53 +1000, Brock Henry wrote:
>
> Test 1, For each import, I'm dropping all indexes and pkeys/fkeys,
> then importing, then adding keys and indexes. Then I've got successive
> runs. I figure the reindexing will get more expensive as the database
> grows?
Sounds like the ri
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 15:46 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 11:44:13PM +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
>
> > > DateTimeIndex was created on both columns (Date/Time):
> > > CREATE INDEX "DateTimeIndex" ON "tablex" USING btree (&qu
n
just EXPLAIN.
A few things to be careful of:
- Is this supposed to be a slice of midnight to 6pm, for each day
between 28 June and 4 July? If you want a continuous period from
Midnight 28 June -> 6pm 4 July you're better to have a single timestamp
field.
- It is unlikely that the , &qu
0, which I have now increased to 2
on that system.
You may also want to look at:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
Or indeed, peruse the articles regularly as they appear:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/
Regards,
n/free" reports as "cached", divide that
by 10, and set it to that as a quick rule of thumb...
Regards,
Andrew McMillan
> shared_buffers = 2000 # min 16, at least max_connections*2, 8KB
> each
> sort_mem = 12288
On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:37 +0800, Michael Ryan S. Puncia wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> My question is .. which is better design
>
>
>
> 1. Single Table with 50 million records or
> 2. Multiple Table using inheritance to the parents table
It's not that simple.
Given your e-m
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:46 -0700, Paul Tuckfield wrote:
> - the "cache" column shows that linux is using 2.3G for cache. (way too
> much) you generally want to give memory to postgres to keep it "close" to
> the user, not leave it unused to be claimed by linux cache (need to leave
> *some* for
running
Debian Linux.
Even having a compiler _installed_ on one of our client's database
servers would usually be considered against security procedures, and
would get a black mark when the auditors came through.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan
--
ournalling was wasted on it.
Is the 'noatime' option worthwhile? Are you saying that PostgreSQL
should always be run on a metadata journalled filesystem then, and that
VFAT, ext2, etc are ++ungood?
Thanks,
Andrew McMillan.
-
in the manual.
There are no magic bullets, but I am sure most of the people on this
list have systems that regularly do way more than 50 inserts / second on
server hardware.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan
-
rn large datasets it can potentially make things
worse (depending on implementation) through double-handling of the data.
As others have said too: 100 is just a configuration setting in
postgresql.conf - not an implemented limit.
Cheers,
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 00:53, Alexander Priem wrote:
> Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
> of :)
>
> After reading lots of material, forums and of course, this mailing-list, I
> think I am going for a RAID5 configuration of 6 disks (18Gb, 15.000 rpm
> eac
29 matches
Mail list logo
