> Also, you might want to experiment with things like
> pg_reorg:
Do you happen to know if that works with 8.4?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
> I see nobody suggesting Solaris... ZFS is supposed to be a
> very nice FS...
(of course, it's not a linux flavor...)
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
> > Hi everyone,
> > What is the best Linux flavor for server
> which runs postgres alone.
> > The postgres must handle greater number of database
> around 200+. Performance
> > on speed is the vital factor.
> > Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
I see nobody suggesting Solaris...
> Be sure to include an ORDER BY clause. For
> example, if someone else starts a query which the planner
> determines
> is best handled with a table scan, and that is still
> running when you
> issue your INSERT/SELECT, your query will join the current
> scan at
> it's point of progress, and "wra
> As Kevin said, there's no guarantee that tuples will be
> read back
> in the order you inserted them.
Ok, didn't know that
> A better option you might consider is to use a separate
> table for the
> re-ordered tuples.
> You could even do this using partitions
Problem is I'm already using par
> You might be better off
> with a CLUSTER on
> some index.
I can't: table is too big, can't lock it for minutes; that's why I wanted to
cluster it "one day at a time".
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
> +1 for index organized tables
+1
I have a table:
CREATE TABLE mytab
(
"time" timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
ne_id integer NOT NULL,
values integer,
CONSTRAINT mytab_pk PRIMARY KEY (ne_id, "time"),
CONSTRAINT mytab_ne_id_key UNIQUE ("time", ne_id)
}
The table is written eve
