Tom Lane wrote:
Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
(performance seems to have d
Carlos Moreno skrev:
The system does very frequent insertions and updates --- the longest
table has, perhaps, some 20 million rows, and it's indexed (the primary
key is the combination of two integer fields). This longest table only
has inserts (and much less frequent selects), at a peak rate of
Are there any issues with client libraries version mismatching
backend version?
I'm just realizing that the client software is still running on the
same machine (not the same machine where PG is running) that
has PG 7.4 installed on it, and so it is using the client libraries 7.4
Any chance tha
Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
I've since discovered a problem that *may* be related to the
deterioration
of the performance *now* --- but that still does not explain the machine
choking since last night, so any comments or tips are still most
welcome.
[...]
And the problem that *may* be related
Carlos Moreno wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
(perfo
Tom Lane wrote:
Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
(performance seems to have d
Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
> overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
> better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
> (performance seems to have deteriorated)
D
