erformance
database is a high performance I/O system. If you look in the archives
you'll find people running postgresql on 30 and 40 drive arrays.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 12:06:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:26:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Preferably a whole lot of queries. All the measurement techniques I can
> >> think
tead of
software raid. stats.distributed.net runs a 3ware controller and SATA
drives.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Whe
le has some form of built-in connection pooling. I don't remember
the exact details of it off the top of my head, but I think it was a
'wedge' that clients would connect to as if it was the database, and the
wedge would then find an available database process to use.
--
Jim C. Nasby
ugh I would choose opterons not for memory size
but because of memory *bandwidth*).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you wa
dn't that be 50%?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
Free
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:20:20PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 22:55:19 -0600,
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:38:21PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > Not exactly. If the number of row
that's not going to
work well at all for a case where you need to hit a relatively small
percentage of rows in a relatively large number of partitions. SELECT
... WHERE customer_id = 1 would be a good example of such a query
(assuming the table is partitioned on something like invoice_date).
--
in the current transaction would be able to recognize if the
partition that tuple was in had been removed, and just ignore that index
entry. Granted, you'd need to clean the index up at some point
(presumably via vacuum), but it doesn't need to occur at partition drop
time.
--
Jim C. Na
ldn't be done using inheritance, though I don't know if inheritence
or a union view is better for partitioning. In either case, this case
might not be a good candidate for phase 1, but I think partitioning
should be designed with it in mind.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant
take the approach of 'give me as much
memory as you can; I'll take it from there, thankyouverymuch', which
makes effective_cache_size a bit of a mystery.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car
t have better app management. Keeping pgsql up-to-date using
ports on FreeBSD is pretty painless (for that matter, so is keeping the
OS itself up-to-date).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your com
esystem operates,
too. If it puts your WALs, temp_db, and database files very close to
each other on the drive, splitting them out to seperate spindles won't
help as much.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of Am
| 0 | 0 |0 |0 | 0 | f | f
| f | f |
(3 rows)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:59:21PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:51:45PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> If you really needed to set enable_seqscan=false (did you really?
> Are you sure that's not the cheapest way?), you might want to
> investiga
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:16:12AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:59:59PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >
> > Well, if I don't do this it wants to seqscan a table that occupies 350k
> > pages, instead of pulling a couple thousand rows. I start
7;t the
pg_dump process be at 100% CPU? It does seem a bit coincidental that the
two procs seem to be taking 100% of one CPU (top shows them running on
different CPUs though).
This is version 7.3.4.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity,
s to take care
of PostgreSQL oddities.
Any other suggestions?
___
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
tr__( self ):
return "%s::int8"%(self.value,)
Enjoy,
Mike
___
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to
801 - 819 of 819 matches
Mail list logo
