Joseph Shraibman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently dumped and restored a 7.4.2 database. It took 30 minutes for
> the data to load (6 gig) and 45 for the indexes to be created (3 gig).
Increasing sort_mem might help.
> Why are the primary keys created after the other indexes?
AFAICS in
On Mon, 24 May 2004, David Garamond wrote:
> Manfred Koizar wrote:
> > You mean InnoDB cannot handle the load?
>
> Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that the disk becomes the bottleneck.
Was this attempting to do each update in a separate transaction?
If so, that is certainly expected, with w
Greg Stark wrote:
Actually, each record will be incremented probably only thousands of times a
day. But there are many banners. Each record has a (bannerid, campaignid,
websiteid, date, countrycode) "dimensions" and (impression, click) "measures".
In the past when I had a very similar situation we
Manfred Koizar wrote:
You mean InnoDB cannot handle the load?
Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that the disk becomes the bottleneck.
--
dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscri
I recently dumped and restored a 7.4.2 database. It took 30 minutes for
the data to load (6 gig) and 45 for the indexes to be created (3 gig).
Why are the primary keys created after the other indexes? That means
that the table data had been evicted from the cache and has to be reloaded.
What
Philip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, now I'm stumped! Since I don't even know what "pga_images" is for
> I don't no how much trouble I'm in!
Not a lot; that's not a system catalog but something that PgAccess
creates. If you're not using PgAccess anymore, you can probably just
drop the table
On 23/05/2004 20:32 Philip wrote:
[snip]
Okay, now I'm stumped! Since I don't even know what "pga_images" is for
I don't no how much trouble I'm in! Should I worry? Am I doomed? Can it
be repaired? Will my computer explode and infect my neighborhood? (Have
I used too many question-marks?) Nothing e
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 12:26:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Giving PG half the RAM is counterproductive no matter what --- that
> pretty much guarantees that every page that's in RAM will be in RAM
> twice, once in PG buffers and once in kernel buffers. The two
Well, unless you're using an OS whi
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, each record will be incremented probably only thousands of times a
> day. But there are many banners. Each record has a (bannerid, campaignid,
> websiteid, date, countrycode) "dimensions" and (impression, click) "measures".
In the past when
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:32:48 +0700, David Garamond
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm contemplating of moving to Postgres, but am worried with the MVCC
>> thing. I've previously tried briefly using InnoDB in MySQL but have to
>> revert back to MyISAM
I'm rather new to database stuff. I've been using postgresql for a
couple years, but that doesn't mean I understand what I'm doing. I have
simply followed the "HOW-TOs". But now I think I'm about to learn a bit
more about the inner workings...
Last week my cron-triggered system-backup began report
On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:32:48 +0700, David Garamond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, each record will be incremented probably only thousands of
>times a day. But there are many banners. Each record has a (bannerid,
>campaignid, websiteid, date, countrycode) "dimensions" and (impression,
>cli
Manfred Koizar wrote:
begin;
update t set val=val+1; -- 1000 times
commit;
How many record versions does it create? 1 or 1000?
1000
I'm implementing a
banner counter which is incremented at least 2-3 millions a day.
How many rows? I would VACUUM that table after every few hundred
updates or whene
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:42:53 -0400,
Vamsikrishna Mudrageda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Intro:
> Hi all, my name is Vams, and I am fairly new to postgresql and totally new to
> mailing lists, so please bare with me. I have used hypersonic sql and mysql,
> and now I am trying out postgresql
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> begin;
> update t set val=val+1; -- 1000 times
> commit;
> How many record versions does it create? 1 or 1000?
1000.
> I'm implementing a
> banner counter which is incremented at least 2-3 millions a day. I
> thought I'd cheat by only commiting afte
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 02:44:31 +0700,
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> begin;
> update t set val=val+1; -- 1000 times
> commit;
>
> How many record versions does it create? 1 or 1000? I'm implementing a
> banner counter which is incremented at least 2-3 millions a day. I
> thought
Intro:
Hi all, my name is Vams, and I am fairly new to postgresql and totally new to
mailing lists, so please bare with me. I have used hypersonic sql and mysql,
and now I am trying out postgresql... and so far, very impressive. GJ dev
team.
Problem:
For the location table, should I use tw
begin;
update t set val=val+1; -- 1000 times
commit;
How many record versions does it create? 1 or 1000? I'm implementing a
banner counter which is incremented at least 2-3 millions a day. I
thought I'd cheat by only commiting after every few minutes. Would that
work or would I still create as m
18 matches
Mail list logo
