health
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Health] Performance Tuning


From: Khurram Shahzad
Subject: Re: [Health] Performance Tuning
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:50:59 +0500

Dear Luis,

I have made all the changes but there is no improvement in the performance. The only change I did not make is the dropping of old DB.

Any further advices please.

Best Regards,
Khurram.

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Luis Falcon <address@hidden> wrote:
Dear Khurram

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:46:31 +0500
Khurram Shahzad <address@hidden> wrote:

> Dear Luis,
>
> I have created the new database and ran the same command to see its
> collate: Name           |   Owner   | Encoding |   Collate   |
> Ctype    | Access privileges
> --------------------------+-----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------
>  Production_n | postgres  | UTF8     | C           | C           |
>
> I can see that the Collate and Ctype are just like those you
> suggested.
>
> I did not delete the old database yet. Is't it good to keep the old
> db with different name? Also, is it fine if I rename the new database
> and give it name of the old database so that I can avoid changing
> database name on all my clients?

The best is to use the same DB name, since not only you won't have to
modify the clients, but also, the attachments (dir $HOME/attach ) are
database name specific. That means that if you change the name, then
you would have to create links to the old name and it's a bit messy.

My advise is to test the performance on the newly recreated DB. If
it's satisfactory, make a good backup of the old DB, drop it and
recreate the DB with the same name.

PS: You can create the DB with the gnuhealth user (so the owner of
the DB will be gnuhealth instead of postgres)

Bests
Luis



--
 
Regards,
Khurram.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]