MirrorX wrote:
> -the table is this ->
> \d configurations
> Table "public.configurationcontext"
One of my concerns was that you might actually be selecting against a
view rather than a table, and the above doesn't reassure me that
you're not. Why the difference between "configurations" and
"
thx for your reply :)
-the timings come from the log
-the table is this ->
\d configurations
Table "public.configurationcontext"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---++---
id| numeric(18,0) |
On 12/29/2011 05:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Second, is that WAL activity on streaming replication or WAL shipping
is documented to contain more data than on non-replicated setups. What
is not clear is how much more data. This not only affects our network
bandwidth estimations, but also I/O load
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM, sgupta wrote:
> I am doing POC on Posgtresql replication. I am using latest version of
> postgresql i.e. 9.1. There are multiple replication solutions avaliable in
> the market (PGCluster, Pgpool-II, Slony-I). Postgresql also provide in-built
> replication solution
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Aleksej Trofimov
wrote:
> Postgres Streaming replication is WAL based replication, so using this type
> of replication you will have absolutely identical database servers, what is
> best choice for HA and scaling reads. Also this choice is not practically
> affect
On 12/29/2011 11:33 AM, sgupta wrote:
I am doing POC on Posgtresql replication. I am using latest version of
postgresql i.e. 9.1. There are multiple replication solutions avaliable in
the market (PGCluster, Pgpool-II, Slony-I). Postgresql also provide in-built
replication solutions (Streaming rep
I am doing POC on Posgtresql replication. I am using latest version of
postgresql i.e. 9.1. There are multiple replication solutions avaliable in
the market (PGCluster, Pgpool-II, Slony-I). Postgresql also provide in-built
replication solutions (Streaming replication, Warm Standby and hot standby).
On 28/12/2011 19:41, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> On 28/12/2011 19:07, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>>> The query eventually completed in more than 18h. For comparison a normal
>>> run doesn't take more than 1m for that specific step.
>>>
>>> Do you th
