Hi All!
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 08:34, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
sort_mem = 131072
This sort_mem value is *very* large - that's 131MB for *each sort* that
It's not TOO large *for PostgreSQL*. When I'm inserting a large amount
of data into tables, sort_mem helps
Hi All!
Tom Lane wrote:
Yaroslav Mazurak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fsync = false
I'd turn fsync back on - unless you don't mind losing your data after a crash.
This is temporary performance solution - I want get SELECT query result
first, but current performance is too low
Hi All!
First, thanks for answers!
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2003 09:24, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
IIRC there is a limit on filesystem cache on freeBSD. 300MB by default.
If that is the case, you might have to raise it to make
effective_cache_size really effective
Hi All!
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 at 10:05, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
It needs to reflect how much cache the system is using - try the free
command to see figures.
I'm not found free utility on FreeBSD 4.7. :(
rant
Grr.. I don't like freeBSD for it's top output.Active/inactive
Hi, All!
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2003 17:30, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2003 09:24, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
PG's memory use can be split into four areas (note - I'm not a developer so
this could be wrong).
1. Shared memory
Table has indexes almost for all selected fields.
showcalc in this query selects and uses 195 rows.
Total query size is 8066 records (COUNT(*) executes about 33 seconds
and uses 120Mb RAM).
With best regards
Yaroslav Mazurak.
inline: model.gif
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
