[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What showed up was the "Error index_formtuple: data takes 21268 bytes: too
> big". If anyone has any ideas on this, please share them.
That says that you have a value too wide to fit in an index entry. If
it was from data that fit before, then I think this must indic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What showed up was the "Error index_formtuple: data takes 21268 bytes: too
> big". If anyone has any ideas on this, please share them.
It means your data is too big to fit into an index.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:02 AM
> To: Schmidt, Peter
> Cc: 'Michael Ansley'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
>
>
> "Schmidt, P
hi, all
I am using phpPgAdmin to create tables and fields, and how do I use SET variables to defind a title, eg. Mr. Miss. Mrs.
Another question, when I use the pg_connect("localhost","","","","dbname"); to connect to a the database, the server returns this message
Unable to connect to Post
> > "Schmidt, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > However, what I'm interested in is the comparison between
> > 7.0x and 7.1x.
> > > Shouldn't the 7.1b4 database be faster? Have you (or anyone
> > else) done this
> > > comparison?
> >
> > 7.1 is considerably faster if you compare performan
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, jeff kuo wrote:
> hi, all
> I am using phpPgAdmin to create tables and fields, and how do I use SET variables to
>defind a title, eg. Mr. Miss. Mrs.
>
> Another question, when I use the pg_connect("localhost","","","","dbname"); to
>connect to a the database, the server r
Hello!!
I need demostrate that PostgreSQL is a great RDBMS for my undergraduate
project, because this, Does somebody has a bechmark (or similar
document) between Postgres and others DB (commercial DB's, principally)
Thanks in advance!!
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:59 AM
> To: Schmidt, Peter
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Michael Ansley'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
>
>
> > This is very strange. Is there any specific query that is causing the
> > problem? Does EXPLAIN show the same output on both versions?
> >
>
>
> "pgbench" doesn't execute any complex sql...
>
> Explain shows exactly the same output for both versions(7.03 & 7.1b4):
I see. That is bad.
Hello
>> > Does anyone knows what means, after an INSERT for exemple the message :
>> >
>> > INSERT 19331808 1
>> >
>> > What the meaning of the two numbers ?
>>
>> Sorry - don't know what the first number is - I'm getting 0 here on testing.
>> The second is the number of rows inserted.
If multi
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 2:26 PM
> To: Schmidt, Peter
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Michael Ansley'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
>
>
>
FWIW, I get the following pgbench results on my machine (HPPA C180,
fast-wide-SCSI drives that I do not recall the specs for):
current sources, with -F
$ pgbench -t 1000 bench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 1
number of transactions p
BTW, what -B setting were you running the postmaster with? While poking
at this, I was reminded that having adequate buffer space really makes
a considerable difference ... especially under WAL, where it's not
necessary to flush dirty buffers to disk at the end of each transaction.
The default -B
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I got roughly twice the tps reading (pgbench -t 1000, with
> -F) at -B 1024.
>
I tried -B 1024 and got roughly the same results (~50 tps). However, when I change WAL opti
"Schmidt, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried -B 1024 and got roughly the same results (~50 tps).
What were you using before?
> However, when I change WAL option commit_delay from the default of 5
> to 0, I get ~200 tps (which is double what I get with 7.03). I'm not
> sure I want to do
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > I got roughly twice the tps reading (pgbench -t 1000, with
> > -F) at -B 1024.
> >
>
> I tried -B 1024 and got roughly the same results (~50 tps). However, wh
> The COMMIT_DELAY parameter defines for how long
>the backend will be forced to sleep after writing a commit record
>to the log with LogInsert call but before
>performing a LogFlush. This delay allows other
>backends to add their commit records to the log so as to have all
>of
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 7:13 PM
> To: Schmidt, Peter
> Cc: 'Bruce Momjian'; 'Michael Ansley'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
>
>
> I get ~50 tps for any commit_delay value > 0. I've tried many values in the
> range 0 - 999, and always get ~50 tps. commit_delay=0 always gets me ~200+
> tps.
>
> Yes, I have tried multiple clients but got stuck on the glaring difference
> between versions with a single client. The tests that
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> BTW, have you tried pgbench with multiple clients (-c) rather
> than just
> one?
>
> regards, tom lane
I was wrong about multiple clients...
I've seen as many as 230 tps with CommitDelay=0.
Peter
number of clients: 100
Okay, am going to guess that all four of these results are with
CommitDelay=0, and for each higher number of clients, the results get
better and better ... what if you increase CommitDelay back to 5, for
those various levels of client connections?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Schmidt, Peter wrote:
>
>
Title: RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
> -Original Message-
> From: The Hermit Hacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Okay, am going to guess that all four of these results are with
> CommitDelay=0,
You guessed right. Here are results for ComitDelay=5.
Peter
number of client
From: "Jean-Arthur Silve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does anyone knows what means, after an INSERT for exemple the message :
>
> INSERT 19331808 1
>
> What the meaning of the two numbers ?
Sorry - don't know what the first number is - I'm getting 0 here on testing.
The second is the number of rows in
23 matches
Mail list logo
