On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 14:45 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:49:27 -0700
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nested Loop Left Join (cost=13920.16..225757555
I was thinking that it might be nice to be able to tell postgres to
refuse to execute any plan with an estimated cost above some threshold.
For example, earlier today I produced this extremely bogus execution
plan with the following top line:
Nested Loop Left Join (cost=13920.16..2257575559347.46
I always thought I would not be the kind of person who writes to this
list asking why the planner is using a sequential scan. I always looked
upon such people as newcomers who would eventually learn the mysterious
wonders of the Pg query execution planner.
But really, this plan is bizarre! Why
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 02:39, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>
> > Current issue:
> >
> > A dual 64-bit Opteron 244 machine with 8GB main memory, two 4-disk RAID5
> > arrays (one for database, one for xlogs). PG's config is extremely
> >
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 14:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:11:38AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system-- cpu
> > r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 10:28, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "SW" == Shane Wright writes:
>
> SW> But, we have now taken the plunge and I'm in a position to do some
> SW> benchmarking to actually get some data. Basically I was wondering if
> SW> anyone else had any particular recommendations (or requ
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 20:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "TL" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > TL> ... On looking at the code I see that it doesn't make any
> > TL> attempt to prune future log segments after a decrease in
> > TL> checkpoint_segments, so
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 09:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry, my last mail got cut off. The server aborted because it couldn't
> > write the xlog. Looks like I omitted this from my last mail:
>
> Selective q
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oh sure, it's bleating. Apparently my computer is too fast:
>
> I don't think the checkpoint process is completing.
>
> > May 12 16:37:08 mistra
Dear list,
We are using PostgreSQL with the database and xlogs on (separate) XFS
volumes under Linux 2.4.25. We are simply curious to hear your
experiences with this combination, if you are using it. In only two
days of heavy activity, we've already been able to corrupt one
database. We've also
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just to keep things in perspective, how large are your current databases, and
> what do you or the company consider to be a signficant length of time? Right
> now I have a development database with just a few thousand records of test data,
> and v
11 matches
Mail list logo
