From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom <tom(at)sdf(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-questions(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [QUESTIONS] Business cases |
Date: | 1998-01-17 23:06:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.96.980117190136.259w-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Tom wrote:
> How are large users handling the vacuum problem? vaccuum locks other
> users out of tables too long. I don't need a lot performance (a few per
> minutes), but I need to be handle queries non-stop).
Not sure, but this one is about the only major thing that is continuing
to bother me :( Is there any method of improving this?
> Also, how are people handling tables with lots of rows? The 8k tuple
> size can waste a lot of space. I need to be able to handle a 2 million
> row table, which will eat up 16GB, plus more for indexes.
This oen is improved upon in v6.3, where at compile time you can stipulate
the tuple size. We are looking into making this an 'initdb' option instead,
so that you can have the same binary for multiple "servers", but any database
created under a particular server will be constrained by that tuple size.
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom | 1998-01-17 23:07:09 | Re: [QUESTIONS] Business cases |
Previous Message | Darren King | 1998-01-17 21:27:26 | Group By, NULL values and inconsistent behaviour. |