A consultant did a project for us and chose MySQL. We thought it was
cool that MySQL was free.
Turns out, MySQL costs over $500 (USD) if you are a commercial
organization like us! Even worse, we have to formally transfer
licenses to customers and any further transfers must include
involvement o
> "Mindaugas Riauba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And what in vacuum verbose output suggests that vacuum is not done
>> often enough? Current output (table is 100MB already) is below.
>
> The output shows vacuum cleaning up about a third of the table. Usually
> people like to keep the overhead
"Tobias Brox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Is it any way to attempt to force the planner to use some specific index
> while creating the plan? Other than eventually dropping all the other
> indices (which is obiously not a solution in production setting anyway)?
>
I don't think currently PG suppo
Mindaugas Riauba wrote:
Hello,
Our database increases in size 2.5 times during the day.
What to do to avoid this? Autovacuum running with quite
aggressive settings, FSM settings are high enough.
Database size should be more or less constant but it
has high turnover rate (100+ insert/updat
Hello,
I'm the fellow who was interviewed in the fall about using PostgreSQL on
1-800-Save-A-Pet.com:
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/techdocs/interview-stosberg.php
The site traffic continues to grow, and we are now seeing parts of the
day where the CPU load (according to MRTG graphs) on the data
We've seen PostgreSQL performance as a dspam database be simply stellar on
some machines with absolutely no tuning to the postgres.conf, and no
statistics target altering.
Some months ago, I moved my domains from a crusty old generic PIII 733 to a
brand new Athlon 3000+ server that I was leasin
--- Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This does not belong on the pgsql-bugs list. The
> pgsql-novice or
> pgsql-performance lists seem more appropiate. I have
> set followups
> to the pgsql-novice list.
>
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:05:00 +0100,
> Bahadur Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
We are testing PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on MS Windows for porting an OLTP system
from MS SqlServer.
We got a major performance issue which seems to boil down to the following
type of query:
select DISTINCT ON (PlayerID) PlayerID,AtDate from Player where
PlayerID='0' order by PlayerID
So, our problem in installing is we don't know a cluster or SSL from a
hole in the ground. Things get confusing about contexts- are we
talking about a user of the system or the database? Yikes, do I need
to write down the 30+ character autogenerated password?
No you don't need to write it do
Mark Stosberg wrote:
I've used PQA to analyze my queries and happy overall with how they are
running. About 55% of the query time is going to variations of the pet
searching query, which seems like where it should be going. The query is
frequent and complex. It has already been combed over for ap
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:45 -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> I have a small business client that cannot afford high-end/high quality
> RAID cards for their next server. That's a seperate argument/issue right
> there for me, but what the client wants is what the client wants.
>
> Has anyone ran Postgres w
11 matches
Mail list logo
