sathiya psql wrote:
This might be a silly question, but ... why 8.1 ?
If you're doing a major upgrade, why not go straight to 8.3? It's been
out long enough that there aren't any obvious nasty bugs, and there have
been a fair few fixes and improvements since prior versions.
Because am using
In the home page itself they were saying testing ... unstable
then we should not use that for live.
so i prefer 8.1 .
You can get 8.3 from backports: http://www.backports.org/ - it's a
debian project to get more up to date versions for existing stable
releases (they
sathiya psql wrote:
This might be a silly question, but ... why 8.1 ?
how it will be a silly question
I thought that some manual changes are required... so am asking this may
be argument for functions had changed.. or any other changes...
There have been changes for sure... but I
My question is that how to migrate my database to 7.4 to 8.1
that is not only dumping the db and extracting that in 8.1 ..
If i do that whether it will work without problem, or i have to do some
manual changes is my question...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, sathiya psql wrote:
My question is that how to migrate my database to 7.4 to 8.1
that is not only dumping the db and extracting that in 8.1 ..
If i do that whether it will work without problem, or i have to do some
manual changes is my question...
you would need to
sathiya psql wrote:
My question is that how to migrate my database to 7.4 to 8.1
that is not only dumping the db and extracting that in 8.1 ..
If i do that whether it will work without problem, or i have to do some
manual changes is my question...
Start by reading the postgresql 8.0 and 8.1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, sathiya psql wrote:
In the home page itself they were saying testing ... unstable
you are talking about the debian home page right?
then we should not use that for live.
so i prefer 8.1 .
Debian selected the version of Postgres for Etch about a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, sathiya psql wrote:
In the home page itself they were saying testing ... unstable
you are talking about the debian home page right?
then we should not use that for live.
so i prefer 8.1 .
Debian selected the version of
you are talking about the debian home page right?
--- no am talking about backports home page..
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:13:01PM +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
My question is that how to migrate my database to 7.4 to 8.1
aptitude install postgresql-8.1
pg_dropcluster 8.1 main
pg_upgradecluster 7.4 main
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance
On Mar 12, 2008, at 2:43 AM, sathiya psql wrote:
My question is that how to migrate my database to 7.4 to 8.1
that is not only dumping the db and extracting that in 8.1 ..
If i do that whether it will work without problem, or i have to do
some manual changes is my question...
the pg
Hello,
(you could receive this message twice - I have some email issues sorry)
I'm setting up a new DB with Centos 5 (amd64) + postgresql 8.3
installed from the pgsql yum repository. This is a host dedicated to
postgresql. From the benchmarks I found here and there on the web, and
having digged
Hello, we plan to buy a dedicated server to host our database.
Here is the proposal I was given (with a second identical server fro
backup using log shipping):
=
IBM X3650 (This is a 2U server, can hold 8 Drives)
2 x QC Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz 12MB L2 1333MHz 80W)
8 x 2GB RAM
What type of usage does it need to scale for? How many concurrent
connections? What size database? Data warehousing or OLTP-type
workloads? Ratio of reads/writes? Do you care about losing data?
One question that's likely going to be important depending on your
answers above is whether or not
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Bruce, would you please add this to the 8.4 patch queue so we remember
to look at this later?
OK, added to queue, but Tom's patch queue comment is:
This is useless since it does not represent a complete patch; the
provided code calls a lot of Greenplum-private
Mark Lewis wrote:
What type of usage does it need to scale for? How many concurrent
connections? What size database? Data warehousing or OLTP-type
workloads? Ratio of reads/writes? Do you care about losing data?
I expected those questions but I was sure that I would forget or ignore
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Mark Lewis wrote:
One question that's likely going to be important depending on your
answers above is whether or not you're getting a battery-backed write
cache for that ServeRAID-8K.
Apparently there's a 8k-l and an regular 8-k; the l doesn't have the
cache, so if this
Hi all,
Just upgraded to 8.2.5.
Given table t with columns a, b, c, d
And index on t using btree (a,b)
Is this indexable:
Select * from t where a || b = '124cab' (or whatever)
Assume a and b are defined as char(3)
I have tried various op classes and so far have just
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Mark Steben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given table t with columns a, b, c, d
And index on t using btree (a,b)
Is this indexable:
Select * from t where a || b = '124cab' (or whatever)
Assume a and b are defined as char(3)
I have tried various op
Hi
I've been wondering about postgresql's handling of repeated subqueries
in statements for a while, and thought I'd ask here.
If the exact same subquery appears in multiple places in a complex
query, it seems to be executed separately each time it appears. I'm
wondering if there's any way,
I just received a new server and thought benchmarks would be interesting. I think this
looks pretty good, but maybe there are some suggestions about the configuration file.
This is a web app, a mix of read/write, where writes tend to be insert into ...
(select ...) where the resulting insert
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any way to get postgresql to detect such repeated query parts
and evaluate them only once?
No, not at the moment. In principle the planner could look for such
duplicates, but it'd be wasted cycles so much of the time that I'd be
loath to do it.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Craig James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just received a new server and thought benchmarks would be interesting. I
think this looks pretty good, but maybe there are some suggestions about the
configuration file. This is a web app, a mix of read/write, where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:18 -0700
Craig James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diffs from original configuration:
max_connections = 1000
shared_buffers = 400MB
work_mem = 256MB
max_fsm_pages = 100
max_fsm_relations = 5000
wal_buffers = 256kB
24 matches
Mail list logo
