On 3 Oct 2002 at 18:53, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 21:47:03 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I believe that was vacuum analyze only.
>
> Well there is
>
> VACUUM [tablename];
>
> and there is
>
> ANALYZE [tablename];
>
> And
>
>
On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 21:47:03 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe that was vacuum analyze only.
Well there is
VACUUM [tablename];
and there is
ANALYZE [tablename];
And
VACUUM ANALYZE [tablename];
is VACUUM followed by ANALYZE.
Servus
On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:57, Robert Treat wrote:
> NOTE: Setting follow up to the performance list
>
> Funny that the status quo seems to be if you need fast selects on data
> that has few inserts to pick mysql, otherwise if you have a lot of
> inserts and don't need super fast selects go with Postgre
NOTE: Setting follow up to the performance list
Funny that the status quo seems to be if you need fast selects on data
that has few inserts to pick mysql, otherwise if you have a lot of
inserts and don't need super fast selects go with PostgreSQL; yet your
data seems to cut directly against this.
Hi,
Today we concluded test for database performance. Attached are results and the
schema, for those who have missed earlier discussion on this.
We have (almost) decided that we will partition the data across machines. The
theme is, after every some short interval a burst of data will be enter
