Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:33:47PM +, Dave Page wrote:
When we outgrow PostgreSQL Tsearch2, then, well, we'll need to stop
pretending to be Google...
Just for the record: Google has been known to sponsor sites in need with
Google Minis and such earlier -- I
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Dave Page wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:33:47PM +, Dave Page wrote:
When we outgrow PostgreSQL Tsearch2, then, well, we'll need to stop
pretending to be Google...
Just for the record: Google has been known to sponsor sites in need
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Guys, current tsearch2 should works with millions of documents.
...
Search itself is incredibly fast !
Oh, I know - you and Teodor have done a wonderful job.
Regards, Dave.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you
As the subject says. A quite puzzling situation: we not only upgraded the
software, but also the hardware:
Old system:
PG 7.4.x on Red Hat 9 (yes, it's not a mistake!!!)
P4 HT 3GHz with 1GB of RAM and IDE hard disk (120GB, I believe)
New system:
PG 8.2.3 on Fedora Core 4
Athlon64 X2
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
(performance seems to have deteriorated)
Did
Tom Lane wrote:
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
(performance seems to have
Carlos Moreno wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
overall performance. However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 15:35:13 +1030,
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From all that I have heard this is another advantage of SCSI disks -
they honor these settings as you would expect - many IDE/SATA disks
often say sure I'll disable the cache but continue to use it or don't
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:21:41 +1030,
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between SCSI and IDE/SATA in this case is a lot if not
all IDE/SATA drives tell you that the cache is disabled when you ask it
to but they either don't actually disable it or they don't retain the
Hi,
I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At present
it is 100.
I have a requirement where the clent want 2000 simultaneous users and the only
option we have now is to in crease the database
On 3/1/07, Shiva Sarna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At
present it is 100.
Most certainly. Adding connections over 200 will degrade performance
dramatically.
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 3/1/07, Shiva Sarna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At
present it is 100.
Most certainly. Adding connections over 200 will degrade
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 3/1/07, Shiva Sarna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At
present it is 100.
Most certainly. Adding connections
13 matches
Mail list logo
