Chris Kratz wrote:
Hello All,
We are struggling with a specific query that is killing us. When doing
explain analyze on the entire query, we *seem* to be getting killed by the
estimated number of rows on a case statement calculation.
I've included a snippet from the explain analyze of the
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:05:00AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
5. do select array_accum(q::text) from generate_series(1,1) q;
I made the tests you suggested and the pattern is clear. The difference
between local and remote command execution is caused by moving data over
the network. E.g.
Hello Richard,
Thank you for the response. I did forget to mention that the columns have the
following meanings.
One, if a begin or end date is null, it means that the role is open ended in
that direction. For example, if there is no end date, that means currently
the role will go on
(1) Latency and throughput don't necessarily correlate well. When blasting
quantities of data to test throughput, TCP_NODELAY might not matter
much -- a full buffer will be sent without a delay anyway. What do you get
on a ping while running the throughput test?
(2) Besides the TCP_NODELAY
in the 10 ms range. Definitely not 800 ms. The 8.1 has the same
problem.
Just for the record: the server PC is Dell Precision 330 with 3Com
3C920
integrated network card. OS MS Windows Professional 2002 with service
pack
2. There is Symantec Antivirus installed - which I have (hopefully)
Folks,
I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick question
about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand that the
cache will allow the cache to be written out if the power fails to the box,
which allows it to report a write as committed safely when
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick question
about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand that the
cache will allow the cache to be written out if the power fails to the box,
which
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick question
about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand that the
cache will allow the
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick
question
about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand
that
the
cache will
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick question
about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand that the
John A Meinel wrote:
The recent *cheap* version of a ramdisk had battery backup for 16 hours.
(Very expensive ramdisks actually have enough battery power to power a
small hard-drive to dump the contents into).
I'm guessing for a RAID controller, the time would be in the max 1 day
range.
i think
On 14-9-2005 22:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
Actually the cache will just hold its contents while the power is out.
When the power is restored, the RAID controller will
Bear in mind you will lose data if the raid controller itself fails (or the
cache memory module). Many solutions have mirrored cache for this reason. But
that's more $$, depending on the risks you want to take.
Quoting Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 14-9-2005 22:03, Alvaro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
One machine is simply not going to be able to scale with the quantities
of links we hope to store information about and we want to move to some
kind of cluster. Because of the quantities of data, it seems to make
sense to go for a cluster setup such that in a 4
14 matches
Mail list logo
