From: | Tom Samplonius <tom(at)sdf(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patches with vacuum fixes available for 7.0.x |
Date: | 2000-12-08 02:11:29 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.05.10012071806110.415-100000@misery.sdf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> We recently had a very satisfactory contract completed by
> Vadim.
>
> Basically Vadim has been able to reduce the amount of time
> taken by a vacuum from 10-15 minutes down to under 10 seconds.
...
What size database was that on?
I looking at moving a 2GB database from MySQL to Postgres. Most of that
data is one table with 12 million records, to which we post about 1.5
million records a month. MySQL's table locking sucks, but as long as are
careful about what reports we run and when, we can avoid the problem.
However, Postgres' vacuum also sucks. I have no idea how long our
particular database would take to vacuum, but I don't think it would be
very nice.
That also leads to the erserver thing. erserver sounds nice, but I sure
wish it was possible to get more details on it. It seems rather
intangible right now. If erserver is payware, where do I buy it?
This is getting a bit off-topic now...
Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Burton | 2000-12-08 02:15:21 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 (ODBC driver?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-08 01:58:31 | Re: abstract: fix poor constant folding in 7.0.x, fixed in 7.1? |