It seems that the version of the db is 9.6.10 :
psql -U db -d db -c "select version()";
Password for user db:
version
---
PostgreSQL 9.6.10 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7
20
I did one final test of increasing the shared_buffers=32GB. It seems to be
having no impact on TPS (in fact, if I look closely there is a 10-15%
**negative** impact on the TPS compared to shared_buffers=2G)
I can confirm that **almost** the entire DB has been cached in the
shared_buffers:
relname
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Fabio Isabettini
wrote:
> we are facing a similar issue on a Production system using a Postgresql 10.6:
>
> org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: EXCEPTION on getstatistics ; ID:
> EXCEPTION on getstatistics_media ; ID: uidatareader.
> run_query_media(2): [a1
Bob Jolliffe writes:
> I wonder what can cause such a massive discrepancy in the sort time.
Are you using the same locale (LC_COLLATE) setting on both machines?
Some locales sort way slower than C locale does. That's not enough
to explain a 1000X discrepancy --- I concur with the other opinions
Jerry Sievers writes:
> Bob Jolliffe writes:
>
>> Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
>> shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
>>
>> I have this at bottom of my config file:
>> shared_buffers = 1GB
>>
>> Yet when I check the setting from
Run https://github.com/n-st/nench and benchmark the underlying vps first.
On Tue 29 Jan, 2019, 11:59 PM Bob Jolliffe The following is output from analyzing a simple query on a table of
> 13436 rows on postgresql 10, ubuntu 18.04.
>
> explain analyze select * from chart order by name;
>
út 29. 1. 2019 v 19:29 odesílatel Bob Jolliffe
napsal:
> The following is output from analyzing a simple query on a table of
> 13436 rows on postgresql 10, ubuntu 18.04.
>
> explain analyze select * from chart order by name;
>QUERY PLAN
>
> ---
Bob Jolliffe writes:
> Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
> shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
>
> I have this at bottom of my config file:
> shared_buffers = 1GB
>
> Yet when I check the setting from pg_setting I see something quite
The following is output from analyzing a simple query on a table of
13436 rows on postgresql 10, ubuntu 18.04.
explain analyze select * from chart order by name;
QUERY PLAN
-
>
> That is likely correct, but the data will likely be stored in the OS file
> cache, so reading it from there will still be pretty fast.
>
Right -- but increasing shared_buffers won't increase my TPS, right? Btw, I
just realised that irrespective of shared_buffers, my entire DB is already
in mem
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:39 AM Saurabh Nanda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going crazy trying to optimise my Postgres config for a production
> setting [1] Once I realised random changes weren't getting my anywhere, I
> finally purchased PostgreSQL 10 - Higher Performance [2] and understood the
> impact
On 2019-Jan-29, Shreeyansh Dba wrote:
> The virtualxid lock is special. It’s a exclusive lock on the transaction’s
> own virtual transaction ID that every transaction always holds. No other
> transaction can ever acquire it while the transaction is running.
> The purpose of this is to allow one tr
Thank you Andrew and Thomas. All is now clear :-)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 13:07, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>
> > "Bob" == Bob Jolliffe writes:
>
> Bob> Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
> Bob> shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:03 AM Saurabh Nanda
wrote:
> All this benchmarking has led me to a philosophical question, why does PG
> need shared_buffers in the first place?
>
PostgreSQL cannot let the OS get its hands on a dirty shared buffer until
the WAL record "protecting" that buffer has been
> "Bob" == Bob Jolliffe writes:
Bob> Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
Bob> shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
Bob> I have this at bottom of my config file:
Bob> shared_buffers = 1GB
Bob> Yet when I check the setting from p
Hi,
check for blocksize (8k) as factor.
8k*131072=1G
regards
Thomas
Am 29.01.19 um 13:32 schrieb Bob Jolliffe:
Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
I have this at bottom of my config file:
shared_
Excuse me if this is a silly question. I am trying to fiddle with
shared_buffers setting on postgresql 10.6 on ubuntu 18.04 server.
I have this at bottom of my config file:
shared_buffers = 1GB
Yet when I check the setting from pg_setting I see something quite different:
postgres=# SELECT name,
Please remove me from this list Serv. I do not use this db anymore and
fills my alerts daily.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:39 Saurabh Nanda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going crazy trying to optimise my Postgres config for a production
> setting [1] Once I realised random changes weren't getting my anyw
Hello,
we are facing a similar issue on a Production system using a Postgresql 10.6:
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: EXCEPTION on getstatistics ; ID:
EXCEPTION on getstatistics_media ; ID: uidatareader.
run_query_media(2): [a1] REMOTE FATAL: dsa_allocate could not find 7 free pages
T
Hi,
I'm going crazy trying to optimise my Postgres config for a production
setting [1] Once I realised random changes weren't getting my anywhere, I
finally purchased PostgreSQL 10 - Higher Performance [2] and understood the
impact of shared_buffers.
IIUC, shared_buffers won't have any significan
The virtualxid lock is special. It’s a exclusive lock on the transaction’s
own virtual transaction ID that every transaction always holds. No other
transaction can ever acquire it while the transaction is running.
The purpose of this is to allow one transaction to wait until another
transaction com
Le 29/01/2019 à 07:15, Saurabh Nanda a écrit :
c) I tried another cloud hosting provider (E2E Networks) and just
the raw performance numbers (with default configuration) are
blowing Hetzner out of the water.
I noticed that on E2E, the root filesystem is mounted with the
following
Hey,
I noticed that pg_locks has an addition row for every transaction that is
created with a locktype "virtualxid". Tried to search it online but I didnt
find an explanation for this behavior. Does anyone can explain why it
happens ?
23 matches
Mail list logo
