Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 06:59:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable --- at least that is
> > that was told. I don't know any personally, but I mentioned it while I
> > was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it.
>
> IMHO,
Peter,
> I'm sure that you've thought of this, but it sounds like you may not have
> done an analyze in your new DB.
Yes. Also a VACUUM. Also forcing a REINDEX on the major involved tables.
Also running counts on the pg_* system tables to see if any objects did not
get restored from the
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 15:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
That _would_ work if ext2 was a reliable file system --- it is not.
Bruce-
I'd like to know your evidence for this. I'm not refuting it, but I'm a >7 year linux user (including several clusters, all of which have run ext2 or ext3) and keep a
On 7 Aug 2003 at 10:05, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
> > It needs to reflect how much cache the system is using - try the "free"
> > command to see figures.
>
> I'm not found "free" utility on FreeBSD 4.7. :(
Grr.. I don't like freeBSD for it's top output.Active/inactive/Wired.. Grr..
why can'
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Wilson A. Galafassi Jr. wrote:
> hello.
> my database size is 5GB. what is the block size recommend?
Well, the biggest block size currently supported by stock linux distros is
4k, so I'd go with that. Postgresql's default block size of 8k is fine
also. Note that linux page
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
> Hi All!
>
>
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> >>>On Wednesday 06 August 2003 08:34, Yaroslav Mazurak wrote:
>
> sort_mem = 131072
>
> >>>This sort_mem value is *very* large - that's 131MB for *each sort* that
>
> It's not TOO la
Hi,
Currently we are using postgresql 7.3 with
Redhat linux 9. We find that when we try to execute 200,000 update statement
through JDBC, the performance of degraded obviously for each update statement
when comparing with less update statement(eg. 5000). Is there any suggestion
that we c
Title: Message
Hi PostrgeSQL team,My PostrgeSQL installed as part of CYGWIN
(Windows XP).I have compared performance PostrgeSQL to MS SQL (I used a
little Java program with number of inserts in table).MS SQL is faster in 12
times :-(It's very strange results.Guys who developed this server: w
