you could use pgpool
http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/
On 1/20/06, James Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am running a website where each page connects to the DB to retrieve and
> write information. Each page load uses a separate connection (rather than
> just sharing o
>> You should never have to do full vacuums...
I would rather say, You should never have to do full vacuums by any
periodic means. It may be done on a adhoc basis, when you have figured
out that your table is never going to grow that big again.
On 1/17/06, Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTE
> If the users puts in some other search fields on the where then the query
> runs faster but > in this format sometimes it takes a lot lot of
> time(sometimes even 2,3 seconds).
Can you eloborate under what conditions which query is slower?
On 1/5/06, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi to
I just saw that there is no where clause in the query, that you had
fed to explain plan.
you need to include a where clause based on id_machine column to see the effect.
On 12/13/05, Pandurangan R S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you set constraint_exclusion = true in postgresql.
Did you set constraint_exclusion = true in postgresql.conf file?
On 12/13/05, Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on trying to partition a big table (I've never partitioned a
> table in any other database till now).
> Everything went ok, except one query that didn't
Hi,
You might try these steps
1. Do a vacuum full analyze
2. Reindex the index on id column
3. Cluster the table based on this index
On 12/5/05, Assaf Yaari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on Linux RedHat WS 3.0.
>
> My application updates counters in DB. I left
