On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 07:22:21AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 07:28:34PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> >Reindexing is in a different class than vacuuming.
>
> Kinda, but it is in the same class as vacuum full. If vacuum neglect (or
> dramatic change in usage) has gotten yo
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:29:15AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > FWIW, I've found problems running PostgreSQL on Windows in a
> > > > multi-CPU environment on w2k3. It runs fine for some period, and
> > > > then CPU and throughput drop to zero. So far I've been unable to
> > > > track do
All the machines I've been able to replicate this on have been SMP w2k3
machines running SP1. I've been unable to replicate it on anything not
running w2k3, but the only 'SMP' machine I've tested in that manner was
an Intel with HT enabled. I now have an intel with HT and running w2k3
sitting in my
Title: RE: [PERFORM] Postgres 7.4 and vacuum_cost_delay.
Hey, thanks for the advice.
Sticking with 7.4 isn't my call. There's a lot wrapped up in common usage of Postgres 7.4 and I could never rally everyone into moving forward. (at least not this year)
I've yet to prove (due to my current
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:47:15PM -0400, Chris Mckenzie wrote:
> I've come to the conclusion I need to simply start tracking all transactions
> and determining a cost/performance for the larger and frequently updated
> tables without the benefit and penalty of pg_statio.
I'll bet it won't help yo
