Hello,
I have ran into an interesting problem with 8.1 and i would like anybody
to explain me if there's a problem with the planner or there's a problem
with myself. In both cases a solution is welcome. The following query:
SELECT sum(qty) FROM
_abi_main_pof_r ampr
inner join _ab
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Damon Hart wrote:
Fedora 8:
Linux 2.6.23.1-49.fc8 #1 SMP Thu Nov 8 21:41:26 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
OpenVZ:
Linux 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5.028stab049.1 #1 SMP Thu Nov 8 16:23:12 MSK 2007
i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
2.6.23 introduced a whole new scheduler:
http://www.linu
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 18:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> > differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> > OpenVZ kernel running on the HN over the stock Fedora 8 kernel.
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 17:00 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 4:50 PM, Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> > differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> > OpenVZ kernel running on the H
On Nov 26, 2007 5:00 PM, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/26/07, Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> > differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> > OpenVZ kernel running on the HN o
Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> OpenVZ kernel running on the HN over the stock Fedora 8 kernel. Is
> this reflective of different emphasis between RHEL an
On Nov 26, 2007 4:50 PM, Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> OpenVZ kernel running on the HN over the stock Fedora 8 kernel. Is
> this reflective of differen
On 11/26/07, Damon Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance
> differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the
> OpenVZ kernel running on the HN over the stock Fedora 8 kernel. Is
> this reflective of different emphasis bet
Is there a source comparing PostgreSQL performance (say, using
pgbench) out of the box for various Linux distributions? Alternately,
is there an analysis anywhere of the potential gains from building a
custom kernel and just what customizations are most relevant to a
PostgreSQL server?
Some backg
Si tenes el hardware necesario y planificas el deployment de la base de
datos apropiadamente sin dudas puede llegar a manejar esa carga.
Saludos
Pablo
Fabio Arias wrote:
Hola amigos, les escribo por que necesito conocer si PostgreSQL es lo
suficientemente robusto para manejar una plataforma t
Translaterating ...
"Also sprach Fabio Arias:"
> Hola amigos, les escribo por que necesito conocer si PostgreSQL es lo
> suficientemente robusto para manejar una plataforma transaccional de 2000 tx
> per second. necesito conocer la manera de separar mi operacion transaccional
> de la aquella que e
Hola amigos, les escribo por que necesito conocer si PostgreSQL es lo
suficientemente robusto para manejar una plataforma transaccional de 2000 tx
per second. necesito conocer la manera de separar mi operacion transaccional
de la aquella que es de consulta sabiendo que existe informacion comun para
I think either would work; both PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server have
success stories out there running VLDBs. It really depends on what you
know and what you have. If you have a lot of experience with Postgres
running on Linux, and not much with SQL Server on Windows, of course the
former would
I had a client that tried to use Ms Sql Server to run a 500Gb+ database.
The database simply colapsed. They switched to Teradata and it is
running good. This database has now 1.5Tb+.
Currently I have clients using postgresql huge databases and they are
happy. In one client's database the bigge
We have several TB database in production and it works well on
HP rx1620 dual Itanium2, MSA 20, running Linux. It's read-only storage for
astronomical catalogs with about 4-billions objects. We have custom
index for spherical coordinates which provide great performance.
Oleg
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007,
Peter Koczan wrote:
Hi all,
I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
(and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize the
Hi all,
I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
(and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize them (mostly
hardware and
On 25/11/2007, Pablo Alcaraz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Peter Childs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> On 25/11/2007, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> Does the pg_dump create this kind of "consistent backups"? Or do I
> need to do the backups using
There is no mention of Out of Memory in that piece of log.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm using a cursor.
Here is the a piece of log file (psqlodbc):
[0.000]conn=02DE3A70, PGAPI_DriverConnect(
in)='DSN=BI;UID=biuser;PWD=x;', fDriverCompletion=0
[0.000]DSN info:
DSN='BI',server='loca
19 matches
Mail list logo
