gt; for this question is probably
> > http://forums.enterprisedb.com/forums/list.page
>
> This thread from 30 November 2011 seems to acknowledge there's a problem:
>
> http://forums.enterprisedb.com/posts/list/2973.page
True, its in feature enhancement, soon we expect a
en when autovacuum
is otherwise disabled.
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/runtime-config-autovacuum.html
---
Regards,
Raghavendra
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Blog: http://raghavt.blogspot.com/
> **Why the autovacuum is running even though, I disabled ? Am I miss
> anything ?
>
&g
ize_pretty(pg_total_relation_size('test'));
pg_size_pretty
88 kB
(1 row)
Thanks in advance.
---
Regards,
Raghavendra
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Blog: http://raghavt.blogspot.com/
ws with in the pages.
> 586-552 = 34 KB -- is still free some where with in the occupied pages (
> calculated through pg_stats and pg_class )
> 34 KB is still free within the pages ( each 8K ) which is basically taken
> as occupied space.
>
>
One more point to add to this good discussion, each row header will occupy
24 bytes + 4 bytes pointer on page to tuple.
---
Regards,
Raghavendra
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Blog: http://raghavt.blogspot.com/
g:-
ALTER table SET (autovacuum_vacuum_threshold=x,
autovacuum_analyze_threshold=);
wal_buffers //max is 16MB
checkpoint_segment/// Its very less in your setting
checkpoint_timeout
temp_buffer // If application is using temp tables
These parameter will also boost the performance.
B
Adarsh,
What is the Size of Database?
Best Regards,
Raghavendra
EnterpriseDB Corporation
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
> >
> >> [root@s8-mysd-2 ~]# free total use
>
> Hi Justin,
Thank you for your reply..
> In the future please don't cross post to multiple lists.
Appoligies for it...
Regards
Raghavendra
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM, jus...@magwerks.com
wrote:
> Because You dropped/deleted the table cache in Session A.
>
&
se tell me, why this is generated and what is the cause.
Thanks in advance
Regards
Raghavendra
have shared the proper information in
resolving my issue. Is the above information provided by me will help out in
tuning better.
Regards
Raghavendra
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Pierre C wrote:
>
> So am I to understand I don't need to do daily reindexing as a maintenan
ed to keep a discussion to the point
mentioned. Truely this question belong to some other place as you have
mentioned in the URL. But answer for Q1 might be expected alteast. Hope i
could get the information from the other Thread in other catagory.
Thank you
Regards
Raghavendra
On Thu, Apr 1,
Thank you for the suggestion.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> raghavendra t wrote:
>
> > my question is, how to get a performance on the existing indexes.
> > You mean to say , drop the existing indexes and create the index
> > with CONCURRE
on the existing indexes. You
mean to say , drop the existing indexes and create the index with
CONCURRENTLY. Does this give the performance back.
Regards
Raghavendra
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> raghavendra t wrote:
>
> > overcome with a corrupted index.
&g
postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
Expected the performance question..
Regards
Raghavendra
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> raghavendra t wrote:
>
> > I have a table with 40GB size, it has few indexes on it.
>
> What does the table look like? What ind
command
2. Best possible way to increase the spead of the REINDEX
Thanks in Advance
Regards
Raghavendra
Hi Mattew,
Thank you for the information.
Once again, I like to thank each and everyone in this thread for there
ultimate support.
Regards
Raghavendra
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Tadipathri Raghu wrote:
>
>> As per the docume
15 matches
Mail list logo
