[SQL] select across two database
hi guys. I want know if it's possible create a select from 2 database or create a view in one of them. -- Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. Systems Manager and Developer. BSDCHiLE. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
[SQL] index find method?
hi list, when I do: CREATE INDEX name_index ON some_table (some_col); what method(hash,btree,rtree,etc.) use by default? -- Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. Systems Manager and Developer. BSDCHiLE. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
[SQL] more than 1000 connections
hi guys I know this list it's about SQL, but if somebody have a pgsql engine with 1000 or more concurrent connections please show me the postgresql.conf or if the pgpool work as a solution to this problem. thanks. -- Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. Evolve or die! -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
Re: [SQL] more than 1000 connections
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 08:06 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Out of interest - why 1000 connections? >> >> Do you really expect to have 1000 jobs concurrently active and doing >> work? If you don't, then you'll be wasting resources and slowing >> things >> down for no reason. There is a connection overhead in PostgreSQL - >> IIRC >> mostly related to database-wide locking and synchronization, but also >> some memory for each backend - that means you probably shouldn't run >> vastly more backends than you intend to have actively working. >> >> If you described your problem, perhaps someone could give you a useful >> answer. Your mention of pgpool suggests that you're probably using a >> web >> app and running into connection count limits, but I shouldn't have to >> guess that. >> >> -- >> Craig Ringer > > This is actually a fantastic point. Have you considered using more than > one box to field the connections and using some sort of replication or > worker process to move them to a master database of some sort? I don't > know about the feasibility of it, but it might work out depending on > what kind of application you're trying to write. > > Disclaimer: I work in a data warehousing and we only have 45 concurrent > connections right now. OLTP and/or large connection counts isn't really > what I spend my days thinking about. ;-) > > -Mark > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql > I have many trouble's with server, because my webmail(roundcube) works with the db and the machine only have 2G of RAM but collapse with 60 concurrent connections, I try with persistent connections and the same problem, I need configure a pool of connection or something. my config max_connections = 100; shared_buffer = 32MB increase to 460 connections and 128MB of shared buffers but it's the same -- Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. Evolve or die! -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
Re: [SQL] more than 1000 connections
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jorge Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Jorge Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>> I have many trouble's with server, because my webmail(roundcube) works >>>> with the db and the machine only have 2G of RAM but collapse with 60 >>>> concurrent connections, I try with persistent connections and the same >>>> problem, I need configure a pool of connection or something. >>>> my config >>>> max_connections = 100; >>>> shared_buffer = 32MB >>>> increase to 460 connections and 128MB of shared buffers but it's the same >>> >>> What, exactly, are the symptoms of a collapse? What do the logs >>> (pgsql, system, your application) have to say? >>> >> affect directly the performance > > I'm trying to help you here, but that answer helps no one. > I know, sorry but the logs don't show anything when many people try login from the webmail begin to grow connections to postgresql and the all system turn too slow. -- Jorge Andrés Medina Oliva. Evolve or die! -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
