Hi all,
Regarding this archive log generation found one observation.
A table named abc_table id found to be archived every 9'th and 39'th minute.
We are able to find number of tuples deleted from the pg_stat_user_tables
view.
But to my wonder the number of tuple inserts are shown 0. How can
HI I think this parameter will be usefull when the storage using RAID stripe , otherwise turn up this parameter is meaningless when only has one device。
发自网易邮箱大师
On 2/1/2018 04:29，Vitaliy Garnashevich wrote：
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Vitaliy Garnashevich <
vgarnashev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The results look really confusing to me in two ways. The first one is that
> I've seen recommendations to set effective_io_concurrency=256 (or more) on
> EBS.
I would not expect this to make much of a dif
I've done some more tests. Here they are all:
io1, 100 GB SSD, 1000 IOPS
effective_io_concurrency=0 Execution time: 40333.626 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1 Execution time: 163840.500 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2 Execution time: 162606.330 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4 Execution time: 163670.405
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Vitaliy Garnashevich
wrote:
> More tests:
>
> io1, 100 GB:
>
> effective_io_concurrency=0
> Execution time: 40333.626 ms
> effective_io_concurrency=1
> Execution time: 163840.500 ms
In my experience playing with prefetch, e_i_c>0 interferes with kernel
read-ahea
More tests:
io1, 100 GB:
effective_io_concurrency=0
Execution time: 40333.626 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1
Execution time: 163840.500 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2
Execution time: 162606.330 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4
Execution time: 163670.405 ms
effective_io_concurrency=8
Execution ti
> I've tried to re-run the test for some specific values of
> effective_io_concurrency. The results were the same.
> That's why I don't think the order of tests or variability in "hardware"
> performance affected the results.
We run many MS SQL server VMs in AWS with more than adequ
2018-01-31 14:15 GMT+01:00 Vitaliy Garnashevich :
> I've tried to re-run the test for some specific values of
> effective_io_concurrency. The results were the same.
>
> That's why I don't think the order of tests or variability in "hardware"
> performance affected the results.
>
AWS uses some int
I've tried to re-run the test for some specific values of
effective_io_concurrency. The results were the same.
That's why I don't think the order of tests or variability in "hardware"
performance affected the results.
Regards,
Vitaliy
On 31/01/2018 15:01, Rick Otten wrote:
We moved our stuff
We moved our stuff out of AWS a little over a year ago because the
performance was crazy inconsistent and unpredictable. I think they do a
lot of oversubscribing so you get strange sawtooth performance patterns
depending on who else is sharing your infrastructure and what they are
doing at the tim
Hi,
I've tried to run a benchmark, similar to this one:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHyXU0yiVvfQAnR9cyH%3DHWh1WbLRsioe%3DmzRJTHwtr%3D2azsTdQ%40mail.gmail.com#CAHyXU0yiVvfQAnR9cyH=HWh1WbLRsioe=mzRJTHwtr=2azs...@mail.gmail.com
CREATE TABLESPACE test OWNER postgres LOCATION '/path/
Kumar, Virendra wrote:
> Can somebody help me avoid nested loops in below query:
> --
> ap_poc_db=# explain (analyze,buffers)
> ap_poc_db-# select site_id, account_id FROM ap.site_exposure se
> ap_poc_db-# WHERE se.portfolio_id=-1191836
> ap_poc_db-# AND EXISTS (select 1 from ap
12 matches
Mail list logo
