On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 00:14:18 -0600,
Dave E Martin XXIII <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> version: 7.3.2
>
> Currently this table has one row in it, where name is 15 unicode
> characters long. It would seem that there would be no need for an index
> on name. However, doing:
It probably has one
version: 7.3.2
Ok, not really sure if this a bug per se, but its non-intuitive, and it
goes against the advice stated in the user guide (page 150, "...there is
no plan that can beat sequentially fetching 1 page...")
I have an application that performs many inserts in a second (its doing
real-t
On Sat, 31 May 2003 00:11:26 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something like:
>
> Cool ... but it's not immediately obvious which of these changes did the
> trick for you. What settings were you at before? And what's the
> details of the problem query?
>
> The first three settings you me
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the hint. I just upped my shared_buffers to 8192, fsm_relations to
> 1, fsm_pages to 10, sort_mem to 64000, and an UPDATE which was taking over 2
> hours dropped down to 1 to 2 minutes!
Cool ... but it's not immediately obvious wh
On Fri, 30 May 2003 09:11:39 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something like:
>
> Also note that no amount of vacuuming will save you if the FSM is not
> large enough to keep track of all the free space. The default FSM
> settings, like all the other default settings in Postgres, are set
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Additionally, you may want to take a look at your query performance. Are
> most of your queries doing sequential scans? In my system, the crucial
> columns of the primary tables are int8 and float8 fields. I have those
> indexed, and I get a serious performance boost by
> As Tom said, you probably need higher FSM settings, but also, do you have
> any long lived transactions (say from some kind of persistent connection
> system) that might be preventing vacuum from removing rows?
No, not at all.
--
Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Peter Childs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> >> Trouble is, as the rows in the tables get deleted/inserted/updated
> >> (the frequency being a couple thousand rows per minute), the database
> >> is growing out of proportion in size.
The FAQ lists a "PostgreSQL BugTool page" at:
http://www.PostgreSQL.org/bugs/bugs.php
which I dimly recall seeing at one point, but it seems to
have dropped off the server. I would guess this has
something to do with the recent changes; the last
posts to pgsql-bugs which carry a number, which I
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Trouble is, as the rows in the tables get deleted/inserted/updated
> > > (the frequency being a couple thousand rows per minute), the database
> > > is growing out of proportion in size. After about a week, I have
> > > to r
I have a database with similar performance constraints. Our best
estimates put the turnover on our most active table at 350k tuples/day.
The hardware is a 4x1.4GHz Xeon w/ a RAID 1 disk setup, and the DB
floats around 500MB of disk space taken. Here is what we do to maintain
operations:
1) Cro
11 matches
Mail list logo