On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The 'cust_id' references the customer that the given data belongs to.
> The
> > reason for this "data bucket" (does this structure
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 'cust_id' references the customer that the given data belongs to. The
> reason for this "data bucket" (does this structure have a proper name?) is
> that the data I need to store on a give customer is quite variable an
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need to trim down your EAV table.
Egads! I'd say completely get rid of this beast and redesign it
according to valid relational concepts.
This post pretty much explains the whole issue with EAV:
http://groups.google.com/gr
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Decibel! wrote:
On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Henrik wrote:
Additionally, you need to be careful of what size writes you're using. If
you're doing random writes that perfectly align with the raid stripe size,
you'll see virtually no RAID5 overhead, and you'll get the perfor
On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Madison Kelly wrote:
The 'cust_id' references the customer that the given data belongs
to. The reason for this "data bucket" (does this structure have a
proper name?) is that the data I need to store on a give customer
is quite variable and outside of my control.
On Aug 14, 2008, at 1:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're developing a project which uses PostgreSQL to store binary
documents. Since our system is likely to grow up to some terabytes
in two
years, I'd like to ask if some of you have had some experience with
storing a huge amount of blob fil
On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Henrik wrote:
Additionally, you need to be careful of what size writes you're
using. If you're doing random writes that perfectly align with the
raid stripe size, you'll see virtually no RAID5 overhead, and
you'll get the performance of N-1 drives, as opposed to
On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Chris Kratz wrote:
Yes, I know hints are frowned upon around here. Though, I'd love
to have them or something equivalent on this particular query just
so the customer can run their important reports. As it is, it's
unrunnable.
Actually, now that I think abou
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
'data=writeback' is the recommended mount method for that file
system, though I see that is not mentioned in our official
documentation.
While writeback has good performance characteristics, I don't know
that I'd go so far as to suppo
