On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Craig
Ringer wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd probably go 64-bit on any reasonably modern machine that
> could be expected to have more than 2 or 3 GB of RAM. Then again, I
> can't imagine willingly building a production database server for any
> non-trivial (ie > a coupl
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:27 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Even if you only have 4 GB of RAM, the 32-bit kernel needs to fight
> with "low memory" vs "high memory", whereas 64-bit has a clean address
> space.
That's a good point. The cutoff is probably closer to 2G or at most 3G.
Certainly it's madn
On 07/06/2009 06:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Craig Ringer (cr...@postnewspapers.com.au) wrote:
What that does mean, though, is that if you don't have significantly
more RAM than a 32-bit machine can address (say, 6 to 8 GB), you should
stick with 32-bit binaries.
I'm not sure this
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> 6) Normally to change the locale you have to shutdown the database, delete
> its data directory, and then run the "initdb" command with appropriate
> options to use an alternate locale. I thought the one-click installer
> handled that though--th
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Patvs wrote:
I use poker software (HoldemManager) to keep track of the statistics (and
show nice graphs) of millions of poker hand histories.
This software (also PokerTracker 3) imports all the poker hands in
PostgreSQL.
I've got about 200MB of PokerTracker data myself in a
* Craig Ringer (cr...@postnewspapers.com.au) wrote:
> What that does mean, though, is that if you don't have significantly
> more RAM than a 32-bit machine can address (say, 6 to 8 GB), you should
> stick with 32-bit binaries.
I'm not sure this is always true since on the amd64/em64t platforms
you
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Patvs wrote:
> -4 One a scale from 1 to 10, how significant are the following on
> performance increase:
> -[ ] Getting a faster harddisk (RAID or a SSD)
> -[ ] Getting a faster CPU
> -[ ] Upgrading PostgreSQL (8.2 and 8.3) to 8.4
> -[ ] Tweaking PostgreSQL (increasi
On 7/6/09 1:43 AM, "Scott Carey" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/09 11:13 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" wrote:
>
>> Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 11:51 -0700, Patvs wrote:
>>>
> There is no reason to go RAID 1 with SSD's if this is an end-user box and
> the data is recoverable. Unlike a hard
On 7/5/09 11:13 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 11:51 -0700, Patvs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> With 4 regular harddisks in RAID0 you get great read/write speeds, but the
>>> SSDs excel in IO/s and a 0.1ms access time.
>>>
>>
>> ... but are often really
Craig Ringer wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 11:51 -0700, Patvs wrote:
With 4 regular harddisks in RAID0 you get great read/write speeds, but the
SSDs excel in IO/s and a 0.1ms access time.
... but are often really, really, really, really slow at writing. The
fancier ones are fast at wr
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 11:51 -0700, Patvs wrote:
> I can see two databases in my pgAdmin: postgres and HoldemManager. All the
> poker data (about 30 GB of data) is in the HoldemManager database.
> Does the quote above (if true?) means, having a 2 Ghz single core or a Xeon
> 2x quadcore (8x 2 Ghz co
11 matches
Mail list logo
