Hi Andreas,
Could you please properly quote the email? The way you did it is quite
unreadable because you always have to guess who wrote what.
On Sunday 06 December 2009 17:06:39 Andreas Thiel wrote:
I'm going to work on the table size of the largest table (result_orig)
itself by
On Sunday 06 December 2009 19:20:17 Andreas Thiel wrote:
Hi Andres,
Thanks a lot for your answers. As bottom line I think the answer is I
have to rethink my DB structure.
Can't answer that one without knowing much more ;)
Could you please properly quote the email? The way you did it is
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I know of several instances running with a larger fsm_pages - you could try to
reduce the fsm_relations setting - I dont know if there are problems lurking
with such a oversized value.
I run a db with 10M max_fsm_pages
Hi All,
Maybe some questions are quite newbie ones, and I did try hard to scan
all the articles and documentation, but I did not find a satisfying
answer.
I'm running PostgreSQL 8.3.6 on a 32-Bit Centos 4 machine (which I
probably should update to 64 Bit soon)
I have some tables which tend
Hi,
On Saturday 05 December 2009 00:03:12 Andreas Thiel wrote:
I'm running PostgreSQL 8.3.6 on a 32-Bit Centos 4 machine (which I
probably should update to 64 Bit soon)
How much memory?
I'm going to work on the table size of the largest table (result_orig)
itself by eliminating columns,
On 5/12/2009 7:03 AM, Andreas Thiel wrote:
Hi All,
Maybe some questions are quite newbie ones, and I did try hard to scan
all the articles and documentation, but I did not find a satisfying
answer.
### My Issue No. 1: Index Size
Is such disk usage for indexes expected? What can I do to
Craig Ringer wrote:
### My Issue No. 1: Index Size
Is such disk usage for indexes expected? What can I do to optimize? I
could not run yet a VACUUM on result_orig, as I hit into max_fsm_pages
limit
You'll like 8.4 then, as you no longer have to play with max_fsm_pages.
The fact that you're
