Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, congratulations on providing quite a large database on such a
limited system. I think most people on such plans have tables with a
few hundred to a thousand rows in them, not a million. Many of the
people here are used to budgets a hundred or a
Miernik wrote:
Might be worth turning off autovacuum and running a manual vacuum full
overnight if your database is mostly reads.
I run autovacum, and the database has a lot of updates all the time,
also TRUNCATING tables and refilling them, usually one or two
INSERTS/UPDATES per second.
OK
Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just installed pgpool2 and whoaaa! Everything its like about 3 times
faster! My application are bash scripts using psql -c UPDATE
Probably spending most of their time setting up a new connection, then
clearing it down again.
If I do it in
On 31 Jul 2008, at 10:29AM, Miernik wrote:
Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just installed pgpool2 and whoaaa! Everything its like about 3
times
faster! My application are bash scripts using psql -c UPDATE
Probably spending most of their time setting up a new connection,
Miernik wrote:
Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just installed pgpool2 and whoaaa! Everything its like about 3 times
faster! My application are bash scripts using psql -c UPDATE
Probably spending most of their time setting up a new connection, then
clearing it down again.
If I
Theo Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
file `which psql`
/usr/bin/psql: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
stripped
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ file `which psql`
/usr/bin/psql: symbolic link to
Miernik wrote:
Theo Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
file `which psql`
/usr/bin/psql: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
stripped
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ file `which psql`
/usr/bin/psql: symbolic link to
On 31 Jul 2008, at 11:17AM, Miernik wrote:
Theo Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
file `which psql`
/usr/bin/psql: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
stripped
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ file `which psql`
Miernik wrote:
BTW, doesn't there exist any tool does what psql -c does, but is
written in plain C, not perl? I was looking for such psql replacement,
but couldn't find any.
As others have noted, psql is written in C, and you're using a wrapper.
Assuming your're on Debian or similar you
A Dimecres 23 Juliol 2008, Miernik va escriure:
I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
something like a query sequencer,
I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
something like a query sequencer, which would process queries in a FIFO
manner, one at a
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Miernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
something like a
Miernik wrote:
I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
something like a query sequencer, which would process queries in a
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
won't ever run into. Why such an incredibly limited virtual machine?
Even my cell phone came with 256 meg built in two years ago.
Because I don't want to spend too much money on the machine rent, and a
48 MB RAM Xen is about all I can get with a budget of
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Miernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
won't ever run into. Why such an incredibly limited virtual machine?
Even my cell phone came with 256 meg built in two years ago.
Because I don't want to spend too much money on the
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my guess is that by running under Xen you're already sacrificing
quite a bit of performance, and running it with only 48 Megs of ram is
making it even worse. But if your budget is $100 a year, I guess
you're probably stuck with such a setup. I
16 matches
Mail list logo
