Home > mailing lists

Mailing lists [pgsql-performance]

1 December 2007

12:21 Utilizing multiple cores for one query henk de wit
12:31 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jonah H. Harris
13:42 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query henk de wit
15:39 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jonah H. Harris
16:04 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query Jean-David Beyer

2 December 2007

09:26 Dealing with big tables Mindaugas
10:05 Re: Dealing with big tables Sami Dalouche
10:38 Re: Dealing with big tables Mindaugas
10:55 Re: Dealing with big tables Guillaume Smet
11:07 Re: Dealing with big tables Gregory Stark
11:35 Re: Dealing with big tables Mindaugas
12:31 Re: Training Recommendations Merlin Moncure
16:32 Re: Training Recommendations Guido Neitzer
19:27 Re: Training Recommendations Usama Munir Dar
20:34 PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Beyers Cronje
20:46 Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Pavel Stehule
21:53 Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Greg Smith
22:13 Re: Dealing with big tables Mark Kirkwood
22:32 Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.5 slow performance on INSERT on Linux Beyers Cronje
23:29 EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Michael Glaesemann
23:56 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Tom Lane

3 December 2007

00:06 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Michael Glaesemann
00:10 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE time calculations Tom Lane
09:35 Re: Dealing with big tables Matthew
15:13 Re: Training Recommendations Paul Lindner
17:54 Re: Training Recommendations Robert Treat
21:14 Re: Dealing with big tables Merlin Moncure
22:50 Re: Training Recommendations Joshua D. Drake

4 December 2007

07:14 Re: Training Recommendations Simon Riggs
11:23 RAID arrays and performance Matthew
11:40 Re: RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark
12:17 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
12:24 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query Matthew
12:46 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
13:12 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
13:31 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
13:53 Re: RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark
14:22 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
14:28 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
14:40 Re: RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark
14:41 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
14:48 Re: RAID arrays and performance James Mansion
14:53 Re: RAID arrays and performance James Mansion
15:00 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
15:06 Optimizer Not using the Right plan Pallav Kalva
15:07 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
15:12 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
15:17 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
15:32 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
15:33 Re: Optimizer Not using the Right plan Tom Lane
16:03 Re: RAID arrays and performance Matthew
18:18 Re: Optimizer Not using the Right plan Pallav Kalva
18:28 Re: RAID arrays and performance Gregory Stark
18:44 Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle
19:03 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle
19:12 Re: RAID arrays and performance James Mansion
19:15 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark
19:27 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle
21:15 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke
22:56 Re: RAID arrays and performance James Mansion
23:39 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark
23:55 Re: RAID arrays and performance Mark Mielke

5 December 2007

00:57 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle
05:47 Re: RAID arrays and performance Greg Smith
07:13 Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Robert Bernabe
07:33 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) ismo.tuononen@solenovo.fi
07:39 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Gregory Stark
08:06 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Usama Dar
10:27 Re: Bad query plans for queries on partitioned table Julian Mehnle
11:50 Re: Optimizer Not using the Right plan galy lee
17:25 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Bill Moran
19:07 Re: TB-sized databases Robert Treat
19:43 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Merlin Moncure
21:20 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Scott Marlowe
22:55 Re: autovacuum: recommended? Decibel!
23:08 Re: TB-sized databases Decibel!

6 December 2007

06:25 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Mark Cave-Ayland
07:51 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Dave Page
08:38 Re: TB-sized databases Simon Riggs
14:42 Re: TB-sized databases Michael Stone
15:16 Re: TB-sized databases Tom Lane
16:46 Re: TB-sized databases Matthew
16:55 Re: TB-sized databases Tom Lane
17:03 Re: TB-sized databases Matthew
17:34 Re: TB-sized databases Tom Lane
18:50 Re: TB-sized databases Michael Stone
19:10 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Mark Cave-Ayland
22:50 database tuning kelvan

7 December 2007

00:50 Re: TB-sized databases Ron Mayer
00:55 Re: TB-sized databases Tom Lane
03:14 Re: TB-sized databases Tom Lane
03:20 Re: TB-sized databases Ron Mayer
04:54 Re: TB-sized databases Ron Mayer
07:13 Re: database tuning Richard Huxton
07:39 Re: database tuning Simon Riggs
09:50 Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Guillaume Cottenceau
09:55 Trouble with LEFT JOIN using VIEWS. Piotr Gasidło
14:36 Re: Trouble with LEFT JOIN using VIEWS. Tom Lane
14:43 Re: Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Erik Jones
15:44 Re: Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Guillaume Cottenceau
16:33 Re: Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Erik Jones
16:45 Re: TB-sized databases Robert Treat
17:50 Re: database tuning kelvan
19:50 Re: TB-sized databases Ron Mayer

8 December 2007

06:06 Measuring table and index bloat Greg Smith
12:21 Re: Cost-Based Vacuum Delay tuning Alvaro Herrera
16:20 Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Mark Mielke
19:46 Re: Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Tom Lane
21:09 Re: Combining two bitmap scans out performs a single regular index scan? Mark Mielke

9 December 2007

09:46 Vacuum full since 15 hours Hervé Piedvache
15:32 Re: Vacuum full since 15 hours Heikki Linnakangas

10 December 2007

08:31 Re: database tuning Richard Huxton
10:51 Re: Utilizing multiple cores for one query Marko Kreen
11:58 Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Piotr Gasidło
12:13 Re: Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Richard Huxton
12:28 Re: Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Pavel Stehule
15:58 Re: database tuning Scott Marlowe
22:51 Re: database tuning kelvan
23:16 Re: database tuning Kevin Grittner
23:19 Fwd: Re: database tuning Kevin Grittner
23:36 Re: database tuning Greg Smith

11 December 2007

06:50 libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
10:07 Benchmarking PG Manolo _
10:16 Re: Benchmarking PG Josh Tolley
10:23 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera
10:36 Re: Benchmarking PG Manolo _
10:57 Is it spam or not? Manolo _
11:11 Re: Benchmarking PG Heikki Linnakangas
12:23 Is it spam or not? Manolo _
14:04 Slow Query Pallav Kalva
14:06 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:07 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
14:12 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:14 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera
14:17 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:20 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera
14:25 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:28 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera
14:43 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
14:50 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:53 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
14:57 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Magnus Hagander
15:10 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
15:19 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
15:25 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
15:34 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Joshua D. Drake
15:40 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
16:16 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark
16:17 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
21:21 Re: database tuning kelvan
21:28 Re: database tuning Alvaro Herrera
21:30 Re: database tuning Scott Marlowe
21:36 Re: database tuning Erik Jones
22:17 Re: database tuning Richard Huxton
22:38 Re: TB-sized databases Simon Riggs
22:51 Re: database tuning kelvan
23:07 Re: database tuning Greg Smith
23:10 Re: database tuning Michael Stone
23:17 Re: database tuning Joshua D. Drake

12 December 2007

03:15 Need help on parameters and their values to tune the postgresql database Bebarta, Simanchala
09:16 Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
09:39 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Steinar H. Gunderson
09:45 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen
09:48 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen
09:48 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
10:06 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
10:08 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
10:12 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
10:40 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Claus Guttesen
10:48 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Greg Smith
10:50 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
11:08 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
11:27 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
11:29 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
11:32 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
11:38 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
11:59 URI to kind of a benchmark Harald Armin Massa
13:15 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Matthew Lunnon
13:28 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Sven Geisler
13:45 Re: URI to kind of a benchmark Stefan Kaltenbrunner
14:53 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake
14:58 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake

13 December 2007

10:41 Re: Index on VARCHAR with text_pattern_ops inside PL/PGSQL procedure. Piotr Gasidło
14:46 Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
15:11 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs
15:23 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Simon Riggs
15:27 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
15:35 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane
15:40 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
16:01 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs
16:16 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Joshua D. Drake
16:27 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Alvaro Herrera
16:46 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
17:12 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs
17:52 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane
18:09 Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance
18:22 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs
18:41 Re: Putting files into fields in a table Alexander Staubo
19:08 Re: Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance
19:16 Re: Putting files into fields in a table Alvaro Herrera
19:22 Re: Putting files into fields in a table Erik Jones
19:53 Re: Putting files into fields in a table Campbell, Lance
20:19 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
20:40 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Simon Riggs
22:43 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner

14 December 2007

06:30 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Russell Smith
06:42 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Tom Lane
10:04 Re: Need help on parameters and their values to tune the postgresql database Heikki Linnakangas
10:12 Re: Limited performance on multi core server Heikki Linnakangas
14:01 viewing source code Roberts, Jon
14:19 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
14:25 Re: viewing source code Bill Moran
14:36 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
14:42 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Matthew
15:07 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data Kevin Grittner
15:22 Re: viewing source code Bill Moran
15:32 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Tom Lane
15:57 Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOASTa Matthew
16:03 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
16:11 Large Objects and Toast Campbell, Lance
16:11 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
16:13 VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Kevin Grittner
18:03 Re: viewing source code Bill Moran
18:30 explanation for seeks in VACUUM Jeff Davis
18:40 Re: explanation for seeks in VACUUM (8.2.4) Jeff Davis
20:03 Re: viewing source code Jonah H. Harris
20:23 Re: viewing source code Andreas Kretschmer
20:35 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
20:39 Re: viewing source code Jonah H. Harris
21:03 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
23:00 Re: VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Tom Lane
23:05 Re: explanation for seeks in VACUUM Tom Lane
23:11 update 600000 rows okparanoid@free.fr

15 December 2007

00:17 Re: update 600000 rows Steve Crawford
02:53 Re: explanation for seeks in VACUUM Jeff Davis
10:43 Re: update 600000 rows Loïc Marteau
14:47 Re: update 600000 rows Greg Smith

16 December 2007

04:30 Re: update 600000 rows andrew@pillette.com
05:39 Re: RAID arrays and performance Bruce Momjian
10:42 Re: update 600000 rows H. Hall
16:46 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die James Mansion
17:03 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane
17:16 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark
17:34 SELECT * FROM table is too slow Adam PAPAI
17:37 Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow Joshua D. Drake
17:52 Re: update 600000 rows Merlin Moncure
18:03 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James
18:03 Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow Steinar H. Gunderson
19:06 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark
19:34 Re: Large Objects and Toast Usama Dar
19:45 Re: update 600000 rows andrew@pillette.com
21:22 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die James Mansion
21:50 Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow andrew@pillette.com

17 December 2007

07:53 Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Bruce Momjian
12:11 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
13:13 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
14:46 Re: VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Kevin Grittner
15:16 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
16:54 Re: update 600000 rows H. Hall
18:35 Multi-threading friendliness (was: libgcc double-free, backend won't die) Craig James
20:03 Re: Multi-threading friendliness James Mansion

18 December 2007

03:31 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Robert Bernabe
03:51 Re: viewing source code Kris Jurka
08:05 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Dave Page
08:23 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Heikki Linnakangas
15:06 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
17:27 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
17:34 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
17:51 Re: viewing source code Richard Huxton
17:51 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
17:52 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera

19 December 2007

05:06 Optimising a query Paul Lambert
05:47 Re: Optimising a query Paul Lambert
07:48 Re: Optimising a query Richard Huxton
08:47 Re: Optimising a query Gregory Stark
08:50 Re: Optimising a query Gregory Stark
11:04 Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Stuart Bishop
11:42 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Cédric Villemain
11:49 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark
14:26 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe
14:45 Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot
14:52 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
14:55 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
16:16 Re: Optimising a query Jeremy Harris
17:50 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith
17:58 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake
18:03 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe
18:06 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake
18:14 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe
18:37 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Ron Mayer
19:01 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake
19:31 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith
20:56 Re: Optimising a query Paul Lambert
21:54 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark
22:38 Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dan Harris
23:40 Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Tom Lane

20 December 2007

00:45 Re: Measuring table and index bloat Decibel!
00:52 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Decibel!
00:54 Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Decibel!
03:24 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake
06:07 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Tom Lane
09:05 Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser
10:14 Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dimitri Fontaine
12:36 Re: Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Alvaro Herrera
12:50 Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Jan de Visser
13:08 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
13:30 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
15:23 Re: Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser
15:30 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
15:40 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
16:40 Re: viewing source code A.M.
16:43 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
17:04 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
17:30 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
17:47 Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot
18:38 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
18:45 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
18:52 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
19:03 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
19:08 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
19:16 Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake
19:35 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
19:52 Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan
20:04 Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan
20:08 Re: viewing source code Chris Browne
20:24 Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon
20:29 Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan
21:04 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
21:07 performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. S Golly
21:16 Re: performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. Scott Marlowe
21:28 Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera
21:36 Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan
21:51 Re: viewing source code Greg Smith
21:54 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
22:02 Re: viewing source code Tom Lane
22:24 Re: viewing source code Harald Armin Massa

21 December 2007

04:59 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Tom Lane
04:59 function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure
06:06 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure
07:18 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Pavel Stehule
13:13 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure
13:35 Re: viewing source code Bruce Momjian
13:40 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Pavel Stehule
13:46 Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure
13:51 Re: viewing source code Dan Langille
15:24 Re: [HACKERS] function body actors (was: viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan
15:48 Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan
18:02 Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot
20:06 Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot
21:07 Re: viewing source code Tom Lane
21:20 Re: viewing source code Michael Stone

25 December 2007

23:06 More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet

26 December 2007

10:07 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Cédric Villemain
10:25 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Simon Riggs
11:47 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
11:55 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
14:14 With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia
14:22 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
14:41 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
15:26 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
16:12 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Pavel Stehule
16:20 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
16:36 Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Chris Hoover
17:14 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith
17:24 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith
18:28 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia
18:32 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia
19:15 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
19:24 pg_dump performance Jared Mauch
19:52 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia
19:52 Re: pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas
19:56 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Florian Weimer
19:59 Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch
20:14 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
20:36 Re: pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas
20:40 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
20:42 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
20:43 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
20:50 Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch
20:52 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
20:53 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
20:57 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:00 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:03 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:09 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:11 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
21:16 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
21:22 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
21:24 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
21:24 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:26 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david@lang.hm
21:36 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
21:40 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith
21:53 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
22:35 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith
22:44 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Devrim GÜNDÜZ

27 December 2007

02:34 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler
03:11 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith
03:39 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
05:10 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane
06:16 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler
06:40 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler
07:41 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
07:48 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Magnus Hagander
12:15 Re: pg_dump performance Gregory Stark
12:20 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera
12:50 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
13:53 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark
13:59 Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch
14:27 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke
14:54 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith
15:20 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane
15:36 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Jean-David Beyer
15:46 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera
15:48 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera
16:01 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark
16:05 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran
17:31 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera
17:54 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane

28 December 2007

07:12 Re: Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Mikko Partio
14:06 Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Kevin Grittner

29 December 2007

09:38 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet
16:22 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Merlin Moncure