Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC452633C15
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:15:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 84628-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:15:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77F5633B16
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:15:40 -0400 (AST)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by news.hub.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0EMFaMd025790
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:15:36 -0400 (AST)
	(envelope-from news@news.hub.org)
Received: (from news@localhost)
	by news.hub.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o0EM56GN022099
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:05:06 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news)
From: "Carlo Stonebanks" <stonec.register@sympatico.ca>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:05:48 -0500
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <hio4eh$lig$1@news.hub.org>
References: <hi41os$eiv$1@news.hub.org>
	<b1b9fac61001071305vf182f3ajff6827f92c943c68@mail.gmail.com>
	<hi5kpr$184c$1@news.hub.org>
	<dcc563d11001071740q572cdae2re410788fe790dbf6@mail.gmail.com>
	<hinqok$1ono$1@news.hub.org> <4B4F8A49.7010906@emolecules.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
In-Reply-To: <4B4F8A49.7010906@emolecules.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.189 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_50=0.001, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX=3.188
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Archive-Number: 201001/318
X-Sequence-Number: 37198

My bad - I thought I had, so it has been re-posted with a (v2) disclaimer in 
the title... like THAT will stop the flaming! <g>

Thanks for your patience!

"Craig James" <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote in message 
news:4B4F8A49.7010906@emolecules.com...
> Carlo Stonebanks wrote:
>> Guys, I want to thank you for all of the advice - my client has just made 
>> a surprise announcement that he would like to set start from scratch with 
>> a new server, so I am afraid that all of this great advice has to be seen 
>> in the context of whatever decision is made on that. I am out there, 
>> hat-in-hand, looking for advice under the PERFORM post: "New server to 
>> improve performance on our large and  busy DB - advice?"
>
> You might start this as a new topic with a relevant title, and reiterate 
> your database requirements.  Otherwise it will get submerged as just a 
> footnote to your original question.  It's really nice to be able to 
> quickly find the new-equipment discussions.
>
> Craig
>
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>