Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-11 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 3. vacuuming this table - it turned out that VACUUM FULL is completly unusable on a table(which i actually expected before) of this size not only to the locking involved but rather due to a gigantic memory require

Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-11 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Luke Lonergan wrote: > Stefan, > > On 3/10/06 12:23 PM, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>wrong(or rather extremely optimistic) the array itself only has two >>(redundant) FC-loops(@2GB )to the attached expansion chassis. The array >>has 2 active/active controllers (with a

Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-10 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Luke Lonergan wrote: > Stefan, > > On 3/10/06 11:48 AM, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>2 HBAs in the server, 2x2 possible paths to each LUN. >>6 disks for the WAL and 12 disks for the data > > > So - you have 18 disks worth of potential bandwidth, not factoring loss du

Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-10 Thread Steve Atkins
On Mar 10, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 3. vacuuming this table - it turned out that VACUUM FULL is completly unusable on a table(which i actually expected before) of this size not only to the locking involved but rather due to a gigan

Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 3. vacuuming this table - it turned out that VACUUM FULL is completly >>> unusable on a table(which i actually expected before) of this size not >>> only to the locking involved but rather due to a gigantic memory >>> requirement and unbelievable

Re: [HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-10 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Luke Lonergan wrote: > Stefan, > > On 3/10/06 9:40 AM, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I will summarize some of the just in case somebody is interested: > > > I am! heh - not surprised :-) > > >>-> table used has 5 integer columns non-indexed during the loads >>-> h

[HACKERS] random observations while testing with a 1,8B row table

2006-03-10 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Hi all! During my testing of large work_mem and maintainence_work_mem setting wrt to CREATE INDEX and sorting I encountered a number of things wrt to doing various operations on such a large table (about 106GB on disk with no dead tuples). I will summarize some of the just in case somebody is inte