2008/3/19, Laurent Raufaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What does it writes so much in the base directory ? If it's some
> temporary table or anything, how can I locate it so I can fix the
> problem ?
Thanks for your help everybody ! I fixed the problem by doing an
ANALYZE to every table (yes I'm so
Laurent Raufaste wrote:
> The problem was that the optimiser didn't know how to run the queries
> well and used millions of tuples for simple queries. For each tuple
> used it was updating some bit in the table file, resulting in a huge
> writing activity to that file.
Good that you solved your pr
In response to "Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Laurent Raufaste wrote:
> > The problem was that the optimiser didn't know how to run the queries
> > well and used millions of tuples for simple queries. For each tuple
> > used it was updating some bit in the table file, resulting in a huge
>
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, the part I wanted to comment on (and got busy yesterday so
> am only getting to it now) is that there's no guarantee that SELECT
> isn't modifying rows.
Another way that SELECT can cause disk writes is if it sets hint bits on
recently-committed row
I just found out that my company is planning on migrating my databases from
our current ISCSI storage solution to NetApps connected via NFS. I knew
about the NetApp migration, but always assumed (and shame on me) that I
would have direct attachments to the servers.
Well, I am very uncomfortable w
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Albe Laurenz wrote:
PostgreSQL doesn't write into the table files when it SELECTs data.
It could easily be hint bit updates that are set by selects getting
written.
Kris Jurka
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make cha
Chris Hoover wrote:
> If you have any real life good or bad stories, I'd love to hear it. Given
> the NetApp arrays supposedly being very good NFS platforms, overall, is this
> a recommended way to run PostgreSQL, or is it recommended to not run this
> way.
We do have an NFS section in our docume
> I need to know if anyone out there is/has run their PostgreSQL on NetApp
arrays via NFS. My particular situation is RH Linux 4 servers running
Postgresql 8.1. I need
> to provide our Operations manager with specific reasons why we should not
run PostgreSQL over NetApp NFS. Otherwise, they
My experience postgresql work good on NFS. Of course, use NFS over TCP, and
use noac if you want to protect your database even more (my experience is
NFS client caching doesn't lead to an irrecoverable database however)
I've encountered problems with RHEL4 as a database server and a client of a
Ne
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Hoover wrote:
>> If you have any real life good or bad stories, I'd love to hear it. Given
>> the NetApp arrays supposedly being very good NFS platforms, overall, is this
>> a recommended way to run PostgreSQL, or is it recommended to not run this
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Chris Hoover wrote:
> >> If you have any real life good or bad stories, I'd love to hear it. Given
> >> the NetApp arrays supposedly being very good NFS platforms, overall, is
> >> this
> >> a recommended way to run PostgreSQL, or is
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Aside from what's said there, I'd note that it's a seriously bad idea
>> to use a "soft mount" or any arrangement wherein it's possible for
>> Postgres to be running while the NFS disk is not mounted.
> Do the docs need updating for th
12 matches
Mail list logo
