Thanks Kevin for the inputs,
In my Case there are 500+ Tables and biggest chunk 30GB ( Table only) + its
indexes.
So i have created 6 batches and executed in parallel . All my scripts
completed in 2 Hours and my DB size came down from 500GB to 300GB.
Yes i do see CPU spike, But i did whole activi
Thanks for the information. So we can upgrade the os right thomas
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 09:39 Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:47 PM Prakash Ramakrishnan
> wrote:
> > We are planned to upgrade the os version rhel 7.3 to 7.5 and now
> currently postgresql community version in 10.5
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:47 PM Prakash Ramakrishnan
wrote:
> We are planned to upgrade the os version rhel 7.3 to 7.5 and now currently
> postgresql community version in 10.5 and there is some extensions working in
> database need your inputs if we upgrade the os mean it will impact anything
>
Hi Team,
We are planned to upgrade the os version rhel 7.3 to 7.5 and now currently
postgresql community version in 10.5 and there is some extensions working
in database need your inputs if we upgrade the os mean it will impact
anything in current settings and extensions please do the needful.Than
On 4/10/19 6:03 PM, Rene Romero Benavides wrote:
What's your current max_wal_size parameter?
SHOW max_wal_size;
If it's 8GB as your configuration's previous value, you would get a
constant share of 512 WAL files. If it's a development environment set
it to the desired size, the smaller the val
What's your current max_wal_size parameter?
SHOW max_wal_size;
If it's 8GB as your configuration's previous value, you would get a
constant share of 512 WAL files. If it's a development environment set it
to the desired size, the smaller the value, the more frequent the
checkpoints, but your checkp
Thomas Kellerer writes:
> David Rowley schrieb am 10.04.2019 um 17:57:
>> Overlooked for PG11. You'll see them in PG12 per [1]. It's not really
>> possible to backpatch a fix for that since these views are created
>> during initdb.
> I don't undertand though why it's not back patched - at least t
I wrote a script to import CSV query logs as described here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-logging.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-LOGGING-CSVLOG
I also created indices for searching:
|CREATE INDEX ON postgres_log_2019_04_09_2300 ((regexp_replace(message,
'^duration: ([.0-9]+) ms.*',
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:58 AM Jess Wren wrote:
>-> Parallel Seq Scan on links
> (cost=0.00..4554.40 rows=75740 width=112)
>
>-> Function Scan on ts_parse
> (cost=0.00..12.50 rows=5 width=32)
>
As per your configuration :
max_wal_size = 50GB
this seems to be the cause for the WAL files piling up.
this has been declared twice, the last one is taking effect.
--
El genio es 1% inspiración y 99% transpiración.
Thomas Alva Edison
http://pglearn.blogspot.mx/
I've manage to generate anothe
David Rowley schrieb am 10.04.2019 um 17:57:
In Postgres 11.2, indexes defined on partitioned tables do not show up in
pg_indexes (the actual indexes for the partitions however do show up).
Is leaving out the indexes defined on the partitioned table intended or a bug?
Overlooked for PG11. Y
On 2019-Apr-11, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 00:39, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> >
> > In Postgres 11.2, indexes defined on partitioned tables do not show up in
> > pg_indexes (the actual indexes for the partitions however do show up).
>
> > Is leaving out the indexes defined on the
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 00:39, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>
> In Postgres 11.2, indexes defined on partitioned tables do not show up in
> pg_indexes (the actual indexes for the partitions however do show up).
> Is leaving out the indexes defined on the partitioned table intended or a bug?
Overlooked
> Hmmm ... what was in reltuples again?
Reltuples had the correct number, and the query plans were showing the
correct estimates.
> it's a bit hard to believe that it could get to be off by 1000X. Have
you suppressed autovacuum on this table?
No, but here are some things I've observed:
1) Any
Looked like a bug.
> 25 нояб. 2018 г., в 14:50, Madan Kumar написал(а):
>
> Got it..
> In my case i was getting session_user in declare section and trying to
> validate later which always resulted in the function owner.
> DECLARE
> user text := SESSION_USER;
>
> So using it within the B
It’s normal behaviour to create a new timeline, when a PostgreSQL slave become
a new master. This is for what timelines were designed.
> 19 нояб. 2018 г., в 0:50, Yuri Kanivetsky
> написал(а):
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to set up Barman, and I've noticed that PostgreSQL 10
> creates a new timelin
Just theoretically assumption. PostgreSQL sometimes may optimise internal
format of data and can sometimes zip data. ASCII data can be zipped better,
then binary random data. Also PostgreSQL sometimes take decision to keep a
column in an external file, if the column is still too big after zip. I
> 22 марта 2019 г., в 22:38, PegoraroF10 написал(а):
>
> On version 10 and 11 hash index was redesigned and now seems to be better
> than btree.
> Their speed, size and memory consuption are better, so ...
> Why is not possible to have all PK and FK just using hash indices ? The only
> thing
In Postgres 11.2, indexes defined on partitioned tables do not show up in
pg_indexes (the actual indexes for the partitions however do show up).
E.g.:
CREATE TABLE base_table
(
column1 varchar(50) NOT NULL,
column2 integer NOT NULL,
column3 integer not null,
part
On 4/8/19 4:50 AM, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> I think it is normal to use ts_parse(). And I suppose you might use
> windows functions.
>
> For example, you have table links:
>
> =# create table links (score int, link text);
> =# insert into links values
> (1, 'http://www.foo.com/bar'),
> (2, 'http
20 matches
Mail list logo
