7; THEN 3 ELSE NULL END AS DELETE_RULE
FROM information_schema.table_constraints AS tc
JOIN information_schema.key_column_usage AS kcu ON
tc.constraint_name = kcu.constraint_name
JOIN information_schema.constraint_column_usage AS ccu ON
ccu.constraint_name = tc.constrain
On 30-12-2011 19:35, Merlin Moncure wrote:
try this (curious):
create table pos as select n from generate_series(1,32) n;
and swap that for the in-query generate series call. your statistics
in the query are completely off (not 100% sure why), so I'm thinking
to replace that since it lies to th
On 30-12-2011 17:40, Tom Lane wrote:
Miguel Silva writes:
But with postgresql version 9.0.5 (in version 9.0.4 all was fine), we
noticed the program was taking longer to start. In fact, in some clients
that had older hardware, it could take around 20 minutes when it usually
takes only a few
eys.
Of course, it is possible to change the code and use a (different)
manual query that does the same and runs perfectly fine, I've already
done that. But why does this happen, from 9.0.5 on? Is there any idea?
Is this situation already known?
I hope someone can enlighten me on
ing, but
I've never done it (have been using SQL dumps), so...
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2008/03/24, at 22:28, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Steve Poe wrote:
At this point, I am just moving the pg_dumpall file to another
server. Pardon
my question: how would you 'ship the log
s OK.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2008/03/10, at 23:56, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:46:10 +
Miguel Arroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tty ad4 ad6 cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/
x27;s surely a lot of disk activity going on. With this figures,
I could have written some hundred gigabytes during the query
execution! Something is definitely not right here.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2008/03/10, at 23:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA
that? Like "the working
mem is too low" or anything else. I know the problem is not the
checkpoints, at least nothing appears on the log related to that. But
it irritates me to be in front of a such complex system and not being
able to know what's going on.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
. Of course I don't need to say I'm relatively new to this
kind of problems. :)
Yours
Miguel Arroz
Miguel Arroz
http://www.terminalapp.net
http://www.ipragma.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
that i should take a look
again?, i used it until solaris 9 and the performance was horrible.
im a happy freebsd user now (using hp and dell hardware though)
---
Miguel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please sen
Hi, reading the archives i cant find a clear answer about softupdates in
freebsd, is it recommended to enable it for the data directory?
---
miguel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Miguel wrote:
Umm, in my box i see better seektimes but worst transfer rates, does
it make sense?
i think i have something wrong, the question i cant answer is what
tunning am i missing?
Well, I forgot to mention I have 15k RPM disks, so
estion i cant answer is what
tunning am i missing?
---
Miguel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 1:51 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i forgot to mention that the 6 discs are in a MSA500 G2 external
storadge, additionally i have two 36G a320 10k in raid 10 for the os
installed in the server slots.
I just chec
the 6 discs are in a MSA500 G2 external
storadge, additionally i have two 36G a320 10k in raid 10 for the os
installed in the server slots.
---
Miguel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 12:52 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my results
Another "known bad" RAID controller. The Smartarray 5i is horrible on Linux
- this is the
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
In summary, my questions:
1. Would running PG on FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x or Linux improve performance?
FreeBSD 6.x will definitely get you improvements. Many speedup
improvements have been made to both the generic disk
17 matches
Mail list logo
