Greetings!
Why does creation of gist indexes takes significantly more time
than normal btree index. Can any configuration changes lead to faster index
creation?
query:
CREATE INDEX co_name_index_idx ON profiles USING gist (co_name_index
public.gist_txtidx_ops);
regds
mallah.
> "LO" == Leon Out <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LO> project. The results so far have been disappointing, with Postgres
LO> performing queries in about the same time as SQL Server even though
LO> Postgres is running on a dedicated box with about 4 times the clock
LO> speed of the SQL Server box.
> Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than
> the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has
> 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system.
Spindle speed does not correlate with 'throughput' in any easy way. What
controllers
> "LO" == Leon Out <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LO> Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than
LO> the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has
LO> 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system.
If you've got the time, try
Courier NewHello again. I'm setting up a backup routine for my new db server. As part of my testing, I'm attempting to pg_restore a pg_dump'ed backup of my database. The database is about 4.3 GB, and the dump file is about 100 MB.
I first did a schema-only restore, then started a data-only restore
All, thanks for your suggestions. I've tweaked my configuration, and I
think I've squeezed a little more performance out of the setup. I also
tried running several tests simultaneously against postgres and SQL
Server, and postgres did much better with the heavy load.
My new settings are:
max_co
Marinos, while you are busy answering my first set of questions :-),
here is an idea that might help even out resource consumption.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:34 +0100, "Marinos J. Yannikos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>begin transaction;
> delete from t where id=5;
> insert into t (id,...) valu
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:19:27PM -0500, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
> what he's doing, this might be a bottleneck. I don't like the virtual memory
> strategy of Linux too much and would rather increase this to 1 - 2 GB for the
> Postgres DB - Specially since he's not running anything else on the mac
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:34 +0100, "Marinos J. Yannikos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm looking for ideas that might improve the interactive performance of
>the system, without slowing down the updates too much.
IOW, you could accept slower updates. Did you actually try and throttle
down the i
