The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, this is one of those "known problem, improved in v7.2" sort of issues?
Yup.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the un
Great, thanks :)
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, this is one of those "known problem, improved in v7.2" sort of issues?
>
> Yup.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The 4m:30s is running one process for 100K inserts ... with two
> > CPUs/processes, it increases the time to process by almost 40% ... ?
>
> Do you mean two processes inserting into the same table?
Yup ..
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 4m:30s is running one process for 100K inserts ... with two
> CPUs/processes, it increases the time to process by almost 40% ... ?
Do you mean two processes inserting into the same table?
I committed some changes recently that reduce the
Morning all ...
Have a client that is running an HP server, specs as follows:
> HP-UX 11.00 HP 9000 L-200, Dual CPU (400MHz - 64 bit),
> OS Disk: 9GB U2W-LVD SCSI, 10K rpm
They are trying to determine whether or not it will be able to
handle their environment, and we're trying
