Hi. I'm on a 64 Bit CentOS 5 system, quadcore processor, 8GB RAM and
tons of data storage (1 TB SATAII disks).
The current SHMMAX and SHMMIN are (commas added for legibility) --
kernel.shmmax = 68,719,476,736
kernel.shmall = 4,294,967,296
Now, according to my reading in the PG manual and this li
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 04/23/2011 03:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Phoenix Kiula
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Postgres is 8.2.9.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> An upgrade wo
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>
> Dhimant Patel wrote:
>
> > I am a new comer on postgres world and now using it for some
> > serious (at least for me) projects. I have a need where I am
> > running some analytical + aggregate functions on data where
> > ordering is don
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> Btw, hardware is not an issue. My db has been working fine for a
>> while. Smaller poorer systems around the web run InnoDB databases. I
>> wouldn't
2.19.193.26/products/serial_ata2-9000.asp
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Thanks for these suggestions.
>
> I am beginning to wonder if the issue is deeper.
>
> I set autovacuum to off, then turned off all the connections to the
> database, and did a manua
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
What else could be wrong?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Phoenix wrote:
>> TOP does not show much beyond "po
= 3600
random_page_cost = 1
What else can I share?
Thanks much for offering to help.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> Sorry, rejuvenating a thread that was basically unans
eciate any thoughts or pointers.
Thanks!
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> I have a large table but not as large as the kind of numbers that get
>> discussed on this list. It has 125 millio
should I check to determine the cost delay -- what's the specific
formula?
Thanks!
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> I have a large table but not as large as the kind of numbers that get
>
I have a large table but not as large as the kind of numbers that get
discussed on this list. It has 125 million rows.
REINDEXing the table takes half a day, and it's still not finished.
To write this post I did "SELECT COUNT(*)", and here's the output -- so long!
select count(*) from links;
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
>
> Phoenix: run top again, and hit the '1' key. It'll show you stats for
each
> cpu. Is one pegged and the others idle?
>
top - 10:38:53 up 29 days, 5 min, 1 user, load average: 64.99, 65.17,
65.06
Tasks:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
.
>
> the first line of vmstat is an average since bootup. Kinda useless. run it
> as: 'vmstat 4'
>
> it will print a line every 4 seconds, which will be a summary of everything
> that happened in the last 4 seconds.
>
> since boot,
I'm on a CentOS 5 OS 64 bit, latest kernel and all of that.
PG version is 8.3.7, compiled as 64bit.
The memory is 8GB.
It's a 2 x Dual Core Intel 5310.
Hard disks are Raid 1, SCSI 15 rpm.
The server is running just one website. So there's Apache 2.2.11,
MySQL (for some small tasks, almost negligib
[Ppsted similar note to PG General but I suppose it's more appropriate
in this list. Apologies for cross-posting.]
Hi. Further to my bafflement with the "count(*)" queries as described
in this thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-01/msg00804.php
It seems that whenever this q
14 matches
Mail list logo
