> ["very, very offtopic"]
> Ok. This comparition is just as useless as the other one,
> because it's comparing oranges with apples (It's funny
> anyway). I was just choosing an example in which you can see
> the best of postgresql against 'not so nice' behavior of
> mssql2000 (no service pack,
> Hi,
>
> I have a perfomance issue :
>
> I run PG (8.0.3) and SQLServer2000 on a Windows2000 Server
> (P4 1,5Ghz 512Mo) I have a table (320 rows) and I run
> this single query :
>
> select cod from mytable group by cod
> I have an index on cod (char(4) - 88 different values)
>
> PG = ~ 2
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:11:58 -0500, John A Meinel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>the insert is occurring into table 'a' not table 'b'.
>'a' refers to other tables, but these should not be modified.
So your "a" is Alvaro's "b", and one of your referenced tables is
Alvaro's "a". This is further suppor
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:25:47AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> SQL 2005 has "MVCC" (they call it something different, of course, but
> that's basicallyi what it is)
Interesting; do they use an overwriting storage manager like Oracle, or
a non-overwriting one like Postgres?
--
Alvaro Herrera
7.4 is the pg version BTWgoing to switch to 8 if it's worth it.
Ingrate, n.: A man who bites the hand that feeds him, and then complains
of indigestion.
--
"Don't say yes until I finish talking."
-- Darryl F. Zanuck
--
"Don't say yes until I finish talking."
Hi,
One simple question. For 125 or more checkpoint segments (checkpoint_timeout
is 600 seconds, shared_buffers are at 21760 or 170MB) on a very busy database,
what is more suitable, a separate 6 disk RAID5 volume, or a RAID10 volume?
Databases will be on separate spindles. Disks are 36
