• Text Size: Normal / Large
• Donate
• Contact

Section Navigation

• Community
• Mailing Lists
  • Subscribe
  • User lists
    • pgsql-admin
    • pgsql-advocacy
    • pgsql-announce
    • pgsql-bugs
    • pgsql-docs
    • pgsql-cygwin
    • pgsql-general
    • pgsql-interfaces
    • pgsql-jdbc
    • pgsql-jobs
    • pgsql-novice
    • pgsql-odbc
    • pgsql -performance
    • pgsql-php
    • pgsql-ports
    • pgsql-sql
  • Developer lists
  • Regional lists
  • Project lists
  • User groups
  • Inactive lists
• IRC
• In The Real World
• International Sites
• Propaganda
• Resources
• Weekly News

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

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