On 11/18/2014 9:36 PM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
What I would like to know is how much the network changed impact on
the tps changes in two cases.
you just measured that.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
--
Sent via pgsql-gene
On 11/18/2014 5:48 PM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
Based on your mail, my senario is more like "excluding connection
establish" case, right? So the network change make the capacity
decrease to 1/5 (204->42). The network change impact the system so much!
have you measured the packet latency, with ping o
Adrian,
I understand you about the tps explain.
What I would like to know is how much the network changed impact on the tps
changes in two cases.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 11/18/2014 05:53 PM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
>
>> Adrian,
>> I saw that in two case, one is 5450
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> i want to setup a standby slave that listens 24/7 but only syncs when told to.
>
> setting "pause_at_recovery_target (boolean)" in recovery.conf on slave
> doesn't help since docs say it only "specifies whether recovery should
> pause when the
On 11/18/2014 05:53 PM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
Adrian,
I saw that in two case, one is 54502 transactions and the other is 13966
but that is caused by capacity decrease.
And fps is transaction per second, so it's not the transactions but
transaction per second, so I don't think the total transactions
di
Adrian,
I saw that in two case, one is 54502 transactions and the other is 13966
but that is caused by capacity decrease.
And fps is transaction per second, so it's not the transactions but
transaction per second, so I don't think the total transactions different
has any problem.
Please point if my
Thanks Francisco,
I am partly understanding your explain.
the "including connection establish" case means the db connection not only
socket connection, the "excluding connection establish" case include many
db query and more depends on socket latency, right?
And what's your suggestion on my testing
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> but as for why it gets a much worse plan after
> flattening --- insufficient data.
Thanks. I'll run some test cases in the morning and post the full queries
matched with ANALYZE EXPLAIN.
This is just puzzling to me. I was hoping there might be a
Hello,
Forwarding this because they are having a dedicated PostgreSQL track put
on by PgUS. I hope all will submit papers. This is a great conference of
about 1500. It is 100% non-profit and is a great opportunity to reach out!
Forwarded Message
Subject:[Blug-list]
Jonathan Vanasco-7 wrote
> I have a particular query that returns resultset of 45k rows out of a
> large resultset (pg 9.3 and 9.1)
>
> It's a many 2 many query, where I"m trying to search for Bar based on
> attributes in a linked Foo.
>
> I tweaked the indexes, optimized the query, and got it do
Jonathan Vanasco writes:
> This is what I don't understand -- notice the two order_by calls.
> If i run this with an inner and outer order_by, I get ~305ms. (I don't
> think I need both, but I wasn't sure if ordering is kept from a subselect )
> If i run this with only the inner,
i want to setup a standby slave that listens 24/7 but only syncs when told to.
setting "pause_at_recovery_target (boolean)" in recovery.conf on slave
doesn't help since docs say it only "specifies whether recovery should
pause when the recovery target is reached."
also "recovery_target = 'immedia
I have a particular query that returns resultset of 45k rows out of a large
resultset (pg 9.3 and 9.1)
It's a many 2 many query, where I"m trying to search for Bar based on
attributes in a linked Foo.
I tweaked the indexes, optimized the query, and got it down an acceptable speed
around 1,100m
Robert DiFalco wrote:
> I just have a single VARCHAR field for name, so the full name
> "William S. Burroughs" is a single row and column. I want to as
> simply as possible have the ability to search find this record
> with Will, will, Burr, burroughs, etc.
> As far as I can tell, the trigram ex
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Robert DiFalco
wrote:
> Either I'm not that smart or I am working on too many things at once (or
> both) but making Full Text work seems super tedious. I just have a single
> VARCHAR field for name, so the full name "William S. Burroughs" is a single
> row and co
On Nov 18, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Robert DiFalco wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the trigram extension would be the easiest way to
> implement this. It looks like I wouldn't need to mess with vectors, etc. It
> would just look like a standard index and query, right? It seems that if I
> need someth
Thanks everyone.
Either I'm not that smart or I am working on too many things at once (or
both) but making Full Text work seems super tedious. I just have a single
VARCHAR field for name, so the full name "William S. Burroughs" is a single
row and column. I want to as simply as possible have the a
On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>
> That index wouldn't help with the query at all.
>
> If you really need a full substring search (i.e., you want to find
> "howardjohnson"), the only thing that could help are trigram indexes.
I stand corrected.
I ran a sample query on my te
On 11/17/2014 7:54 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Robert DiFalco wrote:
SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE upper(FullName) LIKE upper('%John%');
That said, which would be the best extension module to use? A "gist" index on
the uppercased column? Or something else? Th
On 11/18/2014 12:33 AM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
I am working on a evaluation to put db client outside the datacenter and
to know how the network impact on the business.
After several round of testing, I have a question regarding to the two
tps result in stress output.
Test A:
Client and DB server exist
Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Robert DiFalco wrote:
>> SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE upper(FullName) LIKE upper('%John%');
>>
>> That said, which would be the best extension module to use? A "gist" index
>> on the uppercased column?
>> Or something else? Thanks!
>
> Pe
Hi Yanrui:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
> It the "connection establishing" means socket connect? If so, that 's the
> only different for my case A and B.
> So the result of "exclude connection establishing" should be similar,
> right?
>
When you connect to the database you
It the "connection establishing" means socket connect? If so, that 's the
only different for my case A and B.
So the result of "exclude connection establishing" should be similar, right?
My overall test is to fingure out the what's the impact if my client access
db server from out side datacenter(
On 17 November 2014 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another idea that occurred to me is to run a planning cycle in which the
> actual parameter values are made available to the planner, but as
> estimates not hard constants (this facility already exists, it's just not
> being used by plancache.c). This
On 11/18/2014 12:33 AM, Yanrui Hu wrote:
the tps excluding connections establishing should be very close,
right? Because the database is same and capability is same only
network latency is different.
that greatly latency is added to every sql command you send and get
results from. why would
I am working on a evaluation to put db client outside the datacenter and to
know how the network impact on the business.
After several round of testing, I have a question regarding to the two tps
result in stress output.
Test A:
Client and DB server exist in same AWS datacenter.
transaction type:
26 matches
Mail list logo
