I have a client that is testing an internal data platform, and they
were happy with PostgreSQL until they tried to join views - at that
time they discovered PostgreSQL was not using the indexes, and the
queries took 24 hours to execute as a result.
Is this a known issue, or is this possibly a site
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:20:48 +0100, Matt Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is very true. Client side caching is an enormous win for apps, but it
> requires quite a lot of logic, triggers to update last-modified fields on
> relevant tables, etc etc. Moving some of this logic to the DB would
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RAID 10 will typically always outperform RAID 5 with the same HD config.
Isn't RAID10 just RAID5 mirrored? How does that speed up performance?
Or am I missing something?
-- Mitch
---(end
You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called "RAID
10 plus 1", and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
overzealous salesman ;-)
Thanks for the clarification!
- Mitch
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:19:04 -0500, Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Madison Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build the
> farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
> database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on
Hi gang,
I just inherited a FreeBSD box, and it is horribly sick. So we moved
everything to a new machine (power supply failures) and finally got
stuff running again.
Ok, for two days (rimshot)
Here are the two problems, and for the life of me I cannot find any
documentation on either:
1) freeb
Just a quick shout-out to Mark, as you provided the winning answer. I
found numerous mailing list discussions and web pages, but all were
either fragmented or out of date.
Again, many thanks!
-- Mitch
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:08:58 +1300, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> in /etc/sysct
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:02:29 -0800, Dustin Sallings wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2005, at 10:27, Van Ingen, Lane wrote:
>
> > Clarification: I am talking about SQL coding practices in Postgres
> > (how to write queries for best
> > results), not tuning-related considerations (although that would be
>
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:21:09 -0500, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you plan on making your results public be very careful with the
> license agreements on the other db's. I know Oracle forbids the
> release of benchmark numbers without their approval.
...as all of the other commercial da
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:38:13 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If Oracle doesn't eat your rear for lunch,
That would be more like an appetizer at a california cuisine place.
> it would only be because you
> hadn't annoyed them sufficiently for them to bother. Under the terms of
>
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:00:59 +0100, Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've downloaded the latest release (PostgreSQL 8.0) for windows.
> Installation was OK, but I have tried to restore a database.
> It had more than ~100.000 records. Usually I use PostgreSQL
> under
11 matches
Mail list logo
