• Text Size: Normal / Large
• Donate
• Contact

Section Navigation

• Community
• Contributors
• Mailing Lists
  • Subscribe
  • User lists
    • pgsql-admin
    • pgsql-advocacy
    • pgsql-announce
    • pgsql-bugs
    • pgsql-docs
    • pgsql-general
    • pgsql-jobs
    • pgsql-novice
    • pgsql-performance
    • pgsql-php
    • pgsql-sql
    • pgsql-students
  • Developer lists
  • Regional lists
  • Associations
  • User groups
  • Project lists
  • Inactive lists
• IRC
• Featured Users
• International Sites
• Propaganda
• Resources
• Weekly News
• Community login
  • Profile
  • Lost password

pgsql-performance 2007-12 Chronological Index (1/3)

• Thread Index
• [Prev Page]
• [Next Page]

• 29 December 2007
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Merlin Moncure (17:22)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (10:38)
• 28 December 2007
  • Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Kevin Grittner (15:05)
  • Re: Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Mikko Partio (08:12)
• 27 December 2007
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane (18:54)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera (18:31)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (17:05)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark (17:01)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera (16:48)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Vivek Khera (16:46)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Jean-David Beyer (16:36)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane (16:20)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith (15:54)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (15:27)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch (14:59)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Gregory Stark (14:53)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (13:50)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Alvaro Herrera (13:20)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Gregory Stark (13:15)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Magnus Hagander (08:48)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (08:41)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler (07:40)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler (07:16)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Tom Lane (06:10)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (04:39)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith (04:10)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Shane Ambler (03:34)
• 26 December 2007
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Devrim GÜNDÜZ (23:44)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith (23:35)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (22:53)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith (22:40)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (22:36)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (22:26)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (22:24)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (22:24)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (22:22)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (22:16)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (22:11)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (22:09)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (22:02)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (22:00)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (21:57)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (21:53)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (21:52)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch (21:50)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (21:43)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (21:42)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (21:40)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas (21:36)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (21:14)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Jared Mauch (20:59)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Florian Weimer (20:56)
  • Re: pg_dump performance Heikki Linnakangas (20:52)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia (20:52)
  • pg_dump performance Jared Mauch (20:24)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 david (20:15)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia (19:32)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia (19:28)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Greg Smith (18:24)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Greg Smith (18:14)
  • Anyone running on RHEL Cluster? Chris Hoover (17:36)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (17:20)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Pavel Stehule (17:12)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Mark Mielke (16:26)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (15:41)
  • Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Bill Moran (15:22)
  • With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 Fernando Hevia (15:14)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (12:55)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (12:47)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Simon Riggs (11:25)
  • Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Cédric Villemain (11:07)
  • More shared buffers causes lower performances Guillaume Smet (00:06)
• 21 December 2007
  • Re: viewing source code Michael Stone (22:20)
  • Re: viewing source code Tom Lane (22:07)
  • Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot (21:06)
  • Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot (19:02)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan (16:48)
  • Re: [HACKERS] function body actors (was: viewing source code) Andrew Sullivan (16:24)
  • Re: viewing source code Dan Langille (14:51)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (14:46)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Pavel Stehule (14:40)
  • Re: viewing source code Bruce Momjian (14:35)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure (14:13)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Pavel Stehule (08:18)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure (07:06)
  • function body actors (was: viewing source code) Merlin Moncure (05:59)
  • Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code) Tom Lane (05:59)
• 20 December 2007
  • Re: viewing source code Harald Armin Massa (23:24)
  • Re: viewing source code Tom Lane (23:02)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (22:54)
  • Re: viewing source code Greg Smith (22:51)
  • Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan (22:36)
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (22:28)
  • Re: performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. Scott Marlowe (22:16)
  • performance index scan vs bitmap-seq scan. S Golly (22:07)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (22:04)
  • Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan (21:29)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (21:24)
  • Re: viewing source code Chris Browne (21:08)
  • Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan (21:04)
  • Re: viewing source code Andrew Sullivan (20:52)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (20:35)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (20:16)
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (20:08)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (20:03)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (19:52)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (19:45)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (19:38)
  • Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot (18:47)
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (18:30)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (18:04)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (17:43)
  • Re: viewing source code A.M. (17:40)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (16:40)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (16:30)
  • Re: Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser (16:23)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (14:30)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (14:08)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Jan de Visser (13:49)
  • Re: Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Alvaro Herrera (13:36)
  • Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dimitri Fontaine (11:14)
  • Reinitialising stats once only without restarting Anton Melser (10:05)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Tom Lane (07:07)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake (04:24)
  • Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Decibel! (01:54)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Decibel! (01:52)
  • Re: Measuring table and index bloat Decibel! (01:45)
  • Re: Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Tom Lane (00:39)
• 19 December 2007
  • Minimizing dead tuples caused by update triggers Dan Harris (23:38)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark (22:54)
  • Re: Optimising a query Paul Lambert (21:56)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith (20:31)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake (20:01)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Ron Mayer (19:37)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe (19:14)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake (19:06)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe (19:03)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Joshua D. Drake (18:58)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Greg Smith (18:50)
  • Re: Optimising a query Jeremy Harris (17:14)
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (15:55)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (15:52)
  • Re: viewing source code Trevor Talbot (15:45)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Scott Marlowe (15:26)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Gregory Stark (12:49)
  • Re: Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Cédric Villemain (12:42)
  • Dual core Opterons beating quad core Xeons? Stuart Bishop (12:04)
  • Re: Optimising a query Gregory Stark (09:50)
  • Re: Optimising a query Gregory Stark (09:47)
  • Re: Optimising a query Richard Huxton (08:48)
  • Re: Optimising a query Paul Lambert (06:47)
  • Optimising a query Paul Lambert (06:06)
• 18 December 2007
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (18:52)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (18:51)
  • Re: viewing source code Richard Huxton (18:50)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (18:34)
  • Re: viewing source code Alvaro Herrera (18:27)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (16:06)
  • Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Heikki Linnakangas (09:23)
  • Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Dave Page (09:05)
  • Re: viewing source code Kris Jurka (04:51)
  • Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) Robert Bernabe (04:31)
• 17 December 2007
  • Re: Multi-threading friendliness James Mansion (21:03)
  • Multi-threading friendliness (was: libgcc double-free, backend won't die) Craig James (19:35)
  • Re: update 600000 rows H. Hall (17:54)
  • Re: viewing source code Joshua D. Drake (16:16)
  • Re: VACUUM FREEZE output more than double input Kevin Grittner (15:46)
  • Re: viewing source code Merlin Moncure (14:13)
  • Re: viewing source code Roberts, Jon (13:11)
  • Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Bruce Momjian (08:53)
• 16 December 2007
  • Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow andrew (22:50)
  • Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die James Mansion (22:22)
  • Re: update 600000 rows andrew (20:45)
  • Re: Large Objects and Toast Usama Dar (20:34)
  • Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Gregory Stark (20:06)
  • Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow Steinar H. Gunderson (19:03)
  • Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James (19:03)
  • Re: update 600000 rows Merlin Moncure (18:52)
  • Re: SELECT * FROM table is too slow Joshua D. Drake (18:37)
  • SELECT * FROM table is too slow Adam PAPAI (18:34)

• Thread Index
• [Prev Page]
• [Next Page]