On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:46:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Perdue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire
> > system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extremely large
> > query that requires a lot of grou
Tim Perdue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire
> system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extremely large
> query that requires a lot of grouping and sorting.
What have you got the SortMem parameter (backen
I thought this was an interesting thread because we're running into
problems with IO under 7.1 during vacuum and a couple of scheduled aggregation
jobs.
Our database is about 1GB in total size, the machine has 4GB, but the entire
system is only using 1.2 GB, even during vacuum or a daily, extreme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have noted that Postgresql don't make a good memory handle. I have
> made the tables/procedure (in attached file) and run it as "select bench(10,
> 5000)". This will give a 5 records inserts (5 x 1). (well, I run it
> on a P200+64MB of RAM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I have noted that Postgresql don't make a good memory handle. I have
> made the tables/procedure (in attached file) and run it as "select bench(10,
> 5000)". This will give a 5 records inserts (5 x 1). (well, I run it
> on a P200+64MB of RAM, under Linux,
Em 05 Apr 2001, Cedar Cox escreveu:
>To this I say, remember that you are using a database! I would split this
>into 3 tables (people, exams, answers). Then only the 'answers' table
>would contain 3M records. Should be a bit faster. You don't want to have
>to store the and wi
