Hi
As far as I understand pg_xlog is the transaction log i.e. the WAL.
I have a pg 8.2 which has consumed about 113MB in pg_xlog/, while the
cluster is virtually empty. There are a couple of tables in the postgres
schema, but they contain no data at the moment. My disk is filling up and
I want t
> As checkpoints are issued, old WAL files will either be recycled
> (renamed) or deleted. Change the setting, then try (as user postgres)
> issuing a "vacuum full " followed by "SELECT pg_switch_xlog()" that
> should recycle them quicker. That'll only get you down to 3 or 4 files
> though - that's
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK, so that's 7 files?
> What is your checkpoint_segments setting in postgresql.conf? If it's 3
> then you can indeed expect a maximum of 7 WAL files. For a low-activity
> system you can always turn the setting down.
The setting was not set, so I expect that it used
Hi
I am volume testing a db model that consists of a paritioned tables. The
db has been running for a week and a half now and has built up to contain
approx 55000 partition tables of 18000 rows each. The root table therefore
contains about 1 billion rows. When I try to do a "select count(*)" of th
Hi
I have tried to answer to the best of my knowledge but its running on
Soalris 10, and I am not that familiar with solaris ( Go Linux!!! :)
> any more memory. Either you have a very low memory ulimit (look at ulimit
> -a
> in the same session as Postgres) or your machine is really low on memory
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> max_connections = 1000
>
> Do you actually have anywhere near this number of processes? What is your
> setting for work_mem? Keep in mind every process could use as much as
> work_mem
> and actually it's possible to use that much several times over.
>
> Also, what
> God morgen
>
> Please display these memory settings from your postgresql.conf file
> sort_mem
> shared_buffers
I have shown the entire configuration. if its not in the configuration
shown, I have changed its value.
I have used the configuration example provided by Sun regarding running
postgres
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > are a dump of Postgres's current memory allocations and could be
>> useful in
>> > showing if there's a memory leak causing this.
>>
>> The file is 20M, these are the last lines: (the first line continues
>> unttill ff_26000)
>>
>>
>> idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_4_v
> I have shown the entire configuration. if its not in the configuration
> shown, I have changed its value.
I meant to say "I haven't changed its value"
thomas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> > are a dump of Postgres's current memory allocations and could be
>> >> useful in
>> >> > showing if there's a memory leak causing this.
>> >>
>> >> The file is 20M, these are the last lines: (the first line continues
>> >> unttil
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I did a test previously, where I created 1 million partitions (without
>>> data) and I checked the limits of pg, so I think it should be ok.
>
>> Clearly it's not.
>
> You couldn't have tested it too much --- even planning
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It will work on a million partitions and more, provided you do
> operations on single partitions.
Thats good enough for me, thats exactly what I want. I just used the
select count() on the root to get a feeling of how many rows it was in
total. An then I thought that t
>> The db worked fine until it reached perhaps 30-40 thousand partitions.
>
> It depends on how you have the partitions set up and how you're
> accessing them. Are all of these partitions under the same parent
> table? If so, then trying run a SELECT COUNT(*) against the parent
> table is simply
> Are you selecting directly from the child table, or from the parent
> table with constraint_exclusion turned on?
the problem was when selecting from the parent table, but selecting from
child tables are no problem. As stated in other replies, I only wanted to
know how many rows where in the tabl
> So, out of curiosity, I asked my Oracle DBA friend if she'd ever heard
> of anyone having 60,000 or so partitions in a table, and she looked at
> me like I had a third eye in my forehead and said in her sweet voice
> "Well, that would certainly be an edge case". She sounded like she
> was worrie
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Thats good enough for me, thats exactly what I want.
>
> In that case, why use partitions at all? They are simple independent
> tables.
For two reasons,
- the data logically belongs together.
- because its more practical to create tables as childs of a parent table
t
> Excellent, it sounds like you should be fine then. One thing to
> note: if you want to get an "idea" of how many rows you have in your
> partitions, you can run a SUM aggregate on reltuples in pg_class for
> all of your partitions. The more recent the last ANALYZE for each
> table, the more ac
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Thats good enough for me, thats exactly what I want.
>> >
>> > In that case, why use partitions at all? They are simple independent
>> > tables.
>>
>> For two reasons,
>> - the data logically belongs together.
>> - because its more pra
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> In that case, why use partitions at all? They are simple independent
>>> tables.
>
>> For two reasons,
>> - the data logically belongs together.
>> - because its more practical to create tables as childs of a parent
>> table
>> than as independent tables.
>>- ch
> this is my config
>
> checkpoint_segments = 96
> effective_cache_size = 128000
> shared_buffers = 43
> max_fsm_pages = 208000
> max_fsm_relations = 1
>
> max_connections = 1000
>
> autovacuum = off# enable autovacuum subprocess?
>
> fsync = on
> "Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 08:25:09AM +0200, Thomas Finneid wrote:
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> >Tom's point is that if you have 55k tables then just *finding* the
>>> newest
>>> >child table is fairly expensive. You're accessing a not
>>> insignificant-s
Hi
I know the subject has been discussed before, but I dont find what any
information that helps me make it work, so please bear with me.
In pg 8.2 I want to write a function that gathers data from different
tables and joins it into a single resultset, similar to "select * from
tableA", but the p
> Hi there,
>
> You need to do it like this:
>
> with val_list in
> select * from tableA do
> loop
> return next val_list;
> end loop;
> return;
>
> There's an example here:
Does that work in 8.2, cause i get the same error message as I described
above
regards
thoma
23 matches
Mail list logo
