Even if I have a server with 16GB of ram, I must set the shared_buffer to
512MB on windows?
In the wiki page they talk about 1/4 of ram, in my case that represent a
shared_buffer = 4GB, that is incorrect?
I have 8 GB of ram for each processor, each processor is a quad core with
hyperthreading, th
On 09/08/2011 12:40 PM, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
Postgres 9.0 on windows server 2008 r2
HW is a dell dual processor with 16gb of ram .
The general guidelines for Windows servers such as
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server recommend
a fairly small setting for th
Hany ABOU-GHOURY wrote:
> I am working on project to migrate PostgreSQL from V8.2 to 9.0 and
> optimise the new DB
Please don't hijack a thread to start a new topic. Start a new
thread with a subject line which describes the new topic.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pg
Hi all,
I am working on project to migrate PostgreSQL from V8.2 to 9.0 and optimise
the new DB
has any one done some thing like that before ?
my main Task is the Optimisation part so please share some thoughts
Regards
Hany
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 7/09/2011 2:31
"Anibal David Acosta" wrote:
> Maybe 1% or 2% are enabled='F' all others are 'T'
Then an index on this column is almost certainly going to be
counter-productive. The only index on this column which *might*
make sense is WHERE enabled = 'F', and only if you run queries for
that often enough to
>On the other hand, if you have very many rows where enabled is not 'T', and
you are generally searching for where enabled = 'T', you might want a
partial index (an index with a WHERE clause in its definition). If >enabled
only has two states, you will probably get better performance using a
boole
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> My question is, if I have a table with 500,000 rows, and a SELECT of one row
> is returned in 10 milliseconds, if the table has 6,000,000 of rows and
> everything is OK (statistics, vacuum etc)
>
> can i suppose that
"Anibal David Acosta" wrote:
> Tthe reason I add the enabled column to index is because a select
> won't need to read the table to get this value
That's not true in PostgreSQL, although there is an effort to
support that optimization, at least to some degree. In all current
versions of Postgr
Postgres 9.0 on windows server 2008 r2
HW is a dell dual processor with 16gb of ram .
Tthe reason I add the enabled column to index is because a select won't need
to read the table to get this value
My select is : exists(select * from table where account_id=X and
service_id=Y and enabled='T')
So
"Anibal David Acosta" wrote:
> I have a table not too big but with aprox. 5 millions of rows,
> this table must have 300 to 400 select per second. But also must
> have 10~20 delete/insert/update per second.
>
> So, I need to know if the insert/delete/update really affect the
> select performanc
On 8 Září 2011, 14:51, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>
> I have a table not too big but with aprox. 5 millions of rows, this table
> must have 300 to 400 select per second. But also must have 10~20
> delete/insert/update per second.
>
> So, I need to know if the insert/delete/update really a
Hi!
I have a table not too big but with aprox. 5 millions of rows, this table
must have 300 to 400 select per second. But also must have 10~20
delete/insert/update per second.
So, I need to know if the insert/delete/update really affect the select
performance and how to deal with it.
Th
12 matches
Mail list logo
