Hi to all,
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
i have problem of performance ???
Thanks
Sorry for my english
--
Sent via pgsql
Craig Ringer ha scritto:
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:01 +0200, Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Hmm, ok. Does each user really need two tables each? Why?
Does the set of tables for each user have a different stru
Thursday, August 20, 2009, 9:01:30 AM you wrote:
> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
> tables = 4.000 tables!
If all tables are created equal, I would rethink the design. Instead of
using 2 tables p
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:01 +0200, Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
> tables = 4.000 tables!
Hmm, ok. Does each user really need two tables each? Why?
Does the set of tables for each user have a different structure? Or are
you separa
2009/8/19 Kevin Kempter
>
> We do have an index on url_hits.time
>
> not sure why timestamps were not used, I was not here for the design phase.
>
What's type of time column? I don't like it casts it to double in explain.
If it is integer, may be you need to change
and time >= extract ('epoch'
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
Phoenix: run top again, and hit the '1' key. It'll show you stats for
each
cpu. Is one pegged and the others idle?
top - 10:38:53 up 29 days, 5 min, 1 user, loa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Slava Moudry :
>>> increase default stats target, analyze, try again.
>> This field has only 5 values. I had put values/frequencies in my first post.
>
> Sorry, kinda missed that. Anyway, there's no way for pg to know which
> operat
Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
i have problem of performance ???
We have run databases with over 1
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
>>
>> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
>>
>> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2 tables
>> = 4.000 tables!
>>
>> Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
Greg Stark wrote:
What you want is a multi-column primary key where userid is part of
the key. You don't want to have a separate table for each user unless
each user has their own unique set of columns.
Not always true.
When the user logs back in, a hidden part of the login process gets a tab
Hi all;
I have a simple query against two very large tables ( > 800million rows in
theurl_hits_category_jt table and 9.2 million in the url_hits_klk1 table )
I have indexes on the join columns and I've run an explain.
also I've set the default statistics to 250 for both join columns. I get a
v
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> What you want is a multi-column primary key where userid is part of
>> the key. You don't want to have a separate table for each user unless
>> each user has their own unique set of columns.
> Not always true.
...
> The
Greg Stark wrote:
> It would be nice to have a solution to that where you could create
> lightweight temporary objects which belong to an "application session"
> which can be picked up by a different database connection each go
> around.
It would be useful:
CREATE SCHEMA session1234 UNLOGGED
C
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Alvaro
Herrera wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to have a solution to that where you could create
>> lightweight temporary objects which belong to an "application session"
>> which can be picked up by a different database connection each go
>> around
2009/8/20 Slava Moudry :
> Hi,
> Yes, I thought about putting the bit-flags in separate fields.
> Unfortunately - I expect to have quite a lot of these and space is an issue
> when you are dealing with billions of records in fact table, so I prefer to
> pack them into one int8.
For giggles I cre
Kevin Kempter wrote:
Hi all;
I have a simple query against two very large tables ( > 800million rows
in theurl_hits_category_jt table and 9.2 million in the url_hits_klk1
table )
I have indexes on the join columns and I've run an explain.
also I've set the default statistics to 250 for bot
On 8/20/09 4:09 PM, "Kevin Kempter" wrote:
> Hi all;
>
>
> I have a simple query against two very large tables ( > 800million rows in
> theurl_hits_category_jt table and 9.2 million in the url_hits_klk1 table )
>
>
> I have indexes on the join columns and I've run an explain.
> also I've s
Hi,
in a web app we have a query that we want to show in limited results
at a time, this one executes in 10 seconds if i use limit but executes
in 300ms if i remove it.
why is that happening? the query is using and index for avoiding the
sort so the nestloop should go only for the first 20 records
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 2009/8/20 Slava Moudry :
>> Hi,
>> Yes, I thought about putting the bit-flags in separate fields.
>> Unfortunately - I expect to have quite a lot of these and space is an issue
>> when you are dealing with billions of records in fact table, s
Hi,
Yes, I thought about putting the bit-flags in separate fields.
Unfortunately - I expect to have quite a lot of these and space is an issue
when you are dealing with billions of records in fact table, so I prefer to
pack them into one int8.
For users it's also much easier to write "where mt_fl
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jaime Casanova
> To: psql performance list
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:25:11 -0500
> Subject: [PERFORMANCE] how to set wal_buffers
> Hi,
>
> Our fine manual says:
> """
> The amount of memory used in shared memory for WAL data. The default
> is 64
21 matches
Mail list logo
