On 3/2/05 3:51 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to suggest
> REINDEXing those indexes to see if that cuts the vacuum time at all.
The problem with that is it takes a very long time. I've got a couple of
things to try yet on the kswapd problem. If that doesn't work, maybe
On 4/6/04 11:09 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What "out of memory thing"? The tuplestore code is perfectly capable of
> spilling to disk --- in fact the usual performance gripe against it has
> to do with spilling too soon, because sort_mem is set too small.
I tried doing a mass up
When I try to run thread_test.c from the CVS tip, it hangs in an infinite
CPU loop on both linux (RedHat AS 3.0, gcc 3.2.3) and Mac OS X 10.3.3 (gcc
3.3). I've also tried down to gcc 2.96 on Mac OS X.
If I compile it with -g instead of -O2 on linux, it runs to completion and
gives me:
Add this t
> Is there an index on message_recipients(Message_Key)?
Yes.
> How many rows satisfy
>
> SELECT * FROM messages WHERE Message_Date BETWEEN ... AND ... ?
db=> select count(*) from messages where message_date between '29-Mar-04'
and '31-Mar-04 23:59:59';
count
737873
(1 row)
Other c
On 3/25/04 4:13 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure your change is correct? We just added
> "-D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" in post 7.4.2, and the submitters did not
> mention any problems with the -pthread line for gcc.
>
> I just tried it on Sourceforge's Solaris 9 and I
