Thanks again for the hard work, guys.
When I said that the schemas were empty, I was talking about data, not
tables. So you are right that each schema has ~20 tables (plus indices,
sequences, etc.), but pretty much no data (maybe one or two rows at most).
Data doesn't seem to be so important in th
Jeff Janes writes:
> There is a quadratic behavior in pg_dump's "mark_create_done". This
> should probably be fixed, but in the mean time it can be circumvented
> by using -Fc rather than -Fp for the dump format. Doing that removed
> 17 minutes from the run time.
Hmm, that would just amount to
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Hugo wrote:
> Here is a sample dump that takes a long time to be written by pg_dump:
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n5710183/test.dump.tar.gz
> test.dump.tar.gz
> (the file above has 2.4Mb, the dump itself has 66Mb)
>
> This database has 2,311 sche
Hi,
¿How I can recover a row delete of a table that wasn't vacuummed?
I have PostgreSQL 9.1 in Windows XP/7.
Thanks
On 05/16/2012 01:01 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers,
there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives
offering pretty similar performance. For example, look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200
