Shams Khan wrote:
> select now()-query_start as runtime,client_addr,pid,query from
> pg_stat_activity where not query like '%IDLE%' order by 1;
> When I check Idle session running question, shows the many queries running
> but end of the query it shows Rollback and commit which take lot of time.
Hi Kevin,
When I check Idle session running question, shows the many queries running
but end of the query it shows Rollback and commit which take lot of time. I
am little scared bcoz I made changes in memory parameter first time in
postgres and getting this result, earlier I have not seen this. Is
Shams Khan wrote:
> Question 1. How do we correlate our memory with kernel parameters, I mean
> to say is there any connection between shared_buffer and kernel SHMMAX. For
> example if I define my shared buffer more than my current SHMMAX value, it
> would not allow me to use that ??or vice versa.
Can somebody help me this???
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Shams Khan wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
>
> Thanks for such great help :
> I analyzed on query before changing parameters;
>
> explain select count(distinct a.subsno ) from subsexpired a where
> a.subsno not in (select b.subsno from subs b
Hi Kevin,
I got one more question, please help me out.
Question 1. How do we correlate our memory with kernel parameters, I mean
to say is there any connection between shared_buffer and kernel SHMMAX. For
example if I define my shared buffer more than my current SHMMAX value, it
would not allow m
Kevin you Rocks!!!
It was really very helpful...Happy weekend!!!
--Original Message--
From: Kevin Grittner
To: Shams Khan
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] PostgreSQL Performance Tuning / Postgresql.conf and on OS
Level
Sent: Dec 15, 2012 01:50
Shams Khan wrote
Shams Khan wrote:
> *PERFORMANCE WAS BOOSTED UP DRASTICALLY* ---when I edited the
> work_mem to 100 MB---just look at the difference;
You only showed EXPLAIN output, which only shows estimated costs.
As already suggested, try running both ways with EXPLAIN ANALYZE --
which will show both estimate
Maybe
explain analyze select count(distinct a.subsno ) from subsexpired a where
a.subsno not in (select b.subsno from subs b where b.subsno>75043 and
b.subsno<=112565) and a.subsno>75043 and a.subsno<=112565;
Give you more information about real excecuting time.
About postgres.conf
checkpoin
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for such great help :
I analyzed on query before changing parameters;
explain select count(distinct a.subsno ) from subsexpired a where
a.subsno not in (select b.subsno from subs b where b.subsno>75043 and
b.subsno<=112565) and a.subsno>75043 and a.subsno<=112565;
Shams Khan wrote:
> *Need to increase the response time of running queries on
> server...*
> 8 CPU's and 16 cores
> [64GB RAM]
> HDD 200GB
> Database size = 40GB
Without more info, there's a bit of guesswork, but...
> maintenance_work_mem = Not initialised
I would say probably 1GB
> effecti
>
> you can find more about SchemaSpy on the following link -
> http://schemaspy.sourceforge.net/
>
-- yes this is the URL...
I have installed this in Debian ETCH and it is working fine...
am using this in postgres 7.4 ( ya too old version )
sorry i don't about the version and flavor you ar
Hi Suresh,
you can find more about SchemaSpy on the following link -
http://schemaspy.sourceforge.net/
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] postgresql performance tuning toolsDate: Tue, 18 Mar 2008
11:13:39 +0530From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Hi Sathiya,
I
Hi Sathiya,
I am using Solaris-9 and pgsql 8.2.5. Can you pls provide more details
of this tool, if it can be used for my environment? Pls provide link and
docs to get more light on this tool.
Once again thanks for your information.
Regards,
G. V. Suresh Gupta
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:22:31PM +0800, Vincent Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, all
>
> I have a postgresql 7.4 running on mandriva linux 10.1 with 512M RAM & AMD
> 2000+ CPU. I increased system share memory to 128M, buffer to 64M, sort memory
> to 32M. A single query do finish much faster. Now I need to a
On 2/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SuSE always only do backports of fixes and never increase the version
> number. They only appended a self made "build" number which increases.
> So it is really possible that all the fixes are in while the version
> stays the same.
Not tr
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 10:39, Tomeh, Husam wrote:
> I do understand your school of thinking. But let me say this, from just
> a user point of view who had used 7.4.x, 8.0, and 8.1, I'd highly
> recommend to start off with 8.1. I can comment on performance in
> particular among other great stuff suc
before we begin to use, observe, and experience Postgres of our own?
Thanks, Bob
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Given, Robert A
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql performance and tuning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Zitat von Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> But you're not running the least buggy version of the 7.4 branch. The
>> 7.4 branch is up to 7.4.9. If you are runing 7.4.2 then you haven't
>> installed all the updates supplied by Suse for their distribution (or
>> Suse
Zitat von Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But you're not running the least buggy version of the 7.4 branch. The
7.4 branch is up to 7.4.9. If you are runing 7.4.2 then you haven't
installed all the updates supplied by Suse for their distribution (or
Suse backports bug fixes from 7.4.9 to 7.4
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:16 AM
> To: Given, Robert A
> Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql performance and tuning questions
>
> "Given, Robert A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We are beginning a
"Given, Robert A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our philosophy is to use products that have been established, tested and
> stable. We tend to not go with newer versions until they have time to
> mature and have the bugs worked out. This is the version of the DB that
> was packaged with the version
, and experience Postgres of our own?
Thanks, Bob
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Given, Robert A
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql performance and tuning questions
"Given, Robert
"Given, Robert A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are beginning a project to use Postgresql 7.4.2 on zLinux SLES9
> The application of interest is uPortal 2.4.3.
Why are you not starting with a reasonably up-to-date version of
Postgres?
regards, tom lane
Sidnei,
You'll find PostGreSql and Oracle to be kindred spirits. Similar, but
different at the same time. I find performance very good, although you'll
need to tweak the system memory parameters from the defaults and the
postgresql.conf file.
Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
Oracle Ce
Sidnei,
In principle, yes, postgres can do quite well (we use 2 CPU boxes with 2 gigs
of RAM for most of our production servers), but a lot would depened on what
sort of use your database gets -- all read and bulk updates ? Or lots of
updates ? Are the queries complex ? etc., etc. How fast
Milosz Miecznik wrote:
Hi!
I have very important question about performance of PostgreSQL Database. How
it will work with:
- about 300 insert operation per day,
- about 100 selects per day,
- about 100 still connected users?
What hardware platform shall I use for such big database (RAM, No.
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 08:34, Milosz Miecznik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have very important question about performance of PostgreSQL Database. How
> it will work with:
> - about 300 insert operation per day,
> - about 100 selects per day,
> - about 100 still connected users?
> What hardware platfo
27 matches
Mail list logo
