On Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2008 salman wrote:
> archive_command = 'gzip %p; rsync -av %p.gz -e \"ssh -p portNum -i
> /home/postgres/.ssh/id_dsa\"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/postgresql/archives/recovery/%f.gz &&
> rm -f %p.gz'
This works as long as there are no transmission errors. What can be do
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, kevin kempter wrote:
> I've placed this sql in a script:
>
> psql my_db < begin;
> SET CONSTRAINTS ALL DEFERRED ;
> delete from account where 1 = 1;
> delete from cust where 1 = 1;
> delete from cust_type where 1 = 1;
> delete from cust_orders where 1 = 1;
> commit;
> !
>
> Th
Hi List;
I've placed this sql in a script:
psql my_db
I am backing up my databases with pgdump -c command to prevent duplicate
records during a restore.
When I restore the database with this command:
psql -U postgres infoserv < /tmp/infoserv-03-25-2008_12-10
I get the message to use cascade to drop dependent objects.
DROP TABLE
ERROR: cann
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your post. I appreciate your concern.
> I had to deal with this recently where the
> status was "notify interrupt"
Is this a response from "pg_ctl status" command?
At the moment, I see nothing alarming via ps:
$ ps ax | grep post
11807 ?Ss 0:00 sshd: po
> > did you try pg_ctl -m immediate stop ???
>
> I just did, and it worked.
>
>$ pg_ctl stop -m immediate
>waiting for server to shut down done
>server stopped
I'd be careful about shutting down using "immediate" mode. It forces
the database into recovery mode.
Your problem co
Can you provide the output of
explain analyze select count(id) from table;
?
Uwe
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, sathiya psql wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM, CZUCZY Gergely
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > May I ask, do you have any indeces or a primary key on that table?
>
> yes, i
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is there a Postgres equivalent of tkprofs for tuning?
you might want to provide an explanation of what tkprofs is and which
parts you're interested in emulating in pgsql.
Have you read up on explain, explain analyze, and t
Is there a Postgres equivalent of tkprofs for tuning?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:46PM +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
> i need what will be the maximum number of rows *to have good performance* in
> postgres 8.1
any. just accept the fact that count(*) is *always* slow.
use triggers to store counts if you are using them all of the time.
also, i have t
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 17:42 +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
>
>
> I am not sure I understand your question. maybe this link
> answers
> your question:
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/
> this i know.
>
> this is the documentation limitations...
>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:46PM +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand your question. maybe this link answers
> > your question:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/about/
> >
> this i know.
>
> this is the documentation limitations...
>
> i need what will be the maximum num
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:12 AM, sathiya psql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i need what will be the maximum number of rows to have good performance in
> postgres 8.1
This article give you the options that you have with postgresql.
http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2007/08/how_many_ro
>
>
> I am not sure I understand your question. maybe this link answers
> your question:
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/
>
this i know.
this is the documentation limitations...
i need what will be the maximum number of rows *to have good performance* in
postgres 8.1
Regards
Sathiya
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:42 AM, sathiya psql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, finally am changing my question.
> Do get quick response from postgresql what is the maximum number of records
> i can have in a table in postgresql 8.1 ???
I am not sure I understand your question. maybe this link a
Ok, finally am changing my question.
Do get quick response from postgresql what is the maximum number of records
i can have in a table in postgresql 8.1 ???
some more info
*/proc/cpuinfo*
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 4
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.66GHz
stepping: 1
cpu MHz : 2667.031
cache size : 256 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bu
>
> I can't really say anything about your RAM issue, but count(*) is always a
> bad
> idea if it can be avoided. Assuming you have a primary key on the table,
> do a
> count(pk). In my experience that alone cuts down up to 30% of execution
> time.
>
> i want exact count so am doing this...
But as
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM, CZUCZY Gergely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> May I ask, do you have any indeces or a primary key on that table?
>
yes, i have both the index and primary key on a column "id",
and am doing the
SELECT count(id) from TABLE;
this is taking 3 seconds
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, sathiya psql wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> I have a table with 32 lakh record in it. Table size is nearly 700 MB,
> and my machine had a 1 GB + 256 MB RAM, i had created the table space in
> RAM, and then created this table in this RAM.
>
> So now everything is in RAM
Dear Friends,
I have a table with 32 lakh record in it. Table size is nearly 700 MB,
and my machine had a 1 GB + 256 MB RAM, i had created the table space in
RAM, and then created this table in this RAM.
So now everything is in RAM, if i do a count(*) on this table it returns
327600 in 3
21 matches
Mail list logo
