Sean Shanny wrote:
explain analyze SELECT t1.id, t2.url FROM referral_temp t2 LEFT OUTER
JOIN d_referral t1 ON t2.url = t1.referral_raw_url ORDER BY t1.id;
What I would like to know is if there are better ways to do the join? I
need to get all the rows back from the referral_temp table as they
Tested the sql on Quad 2.0GHz XEON/8GB RAM:
During the first run, the CS shooted up more than 100k, and was randomly high/low
Second process made it consistently high 100k+
Third brought it down to anaverage 80-90k
Fourth brought it down to an average of 50-60k/s
By cancelling the queries one-b
Sean Shanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> explain analyze SELECT t1.id, t2.url FROM referral_temp t2 LEFT OUTER
> JOIN d_referral t1 ON t2.url = t1.referral_raw_url ORDER BY t1.id;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---
One other thing: we are running with a block size of 32K.
Nick Shanny
(Brother of above person)
On Apr 22, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Sean Shanny wrote:
I should have included this as well:
show all;
name |setting
+
add_missing
I should have included this as well:
show all;
name |setting
+
add_missing_from | on
australian_timezones | off
authentication_timeout | 60
check_function_bodies | on
checkpoint_s
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 13:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This may be a moot point, since you've stated that changing the loop timing
> > won't solve the problem, but what about making the test part of make? I
> > don't think too many systems are going to change
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Pallav Kalva wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are in the process of building a new machine for our production
> database. Below you will see some of the harware specs for the machine.
> I need some help with setting these parameters (shared buffers,
> effective cache, sort mem) in t
>> Having to recompile to run on single- vs dual-processor
>machines doesn't
>> seem like it would fly.
>
>Oh, I don't know. Many applications require compiling for a target
>architecture; SQL Server, for example, won't use a 2nd
>processor without
>re-installation. I'm not sure about Oracle
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:51:42 -0400, Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I need some help with setting these parameters (shared buffers,
>effective cache, sort mem) in the pg_conf file.
It really depends on the kind of queries you intend to run, the number
of concurrent active connections, th
To all,
Essentials: Running 7.4.1 on OSX on a loaded G5 with dual procs, 8GB
memory, direct attached via fibre channel to a fully optioned 3.5TB
XRaid (14 spindles, 2 sets of 7 in RAID 5) box running RAID 50.
Background: We are loading what are essentially xml based access logs
from about 20
Tom,
> The tricky
> part is that a slow adaptation rate means we can't have every backend
> figuring this out for itself --- the right value would have to be
> maintained globally, and I'm not sure how to do that without adding a
> lot of overhead.
This may be a moot point, since you've stated th
Folks,
I forgot to mention that I used Shell scripts to load
the data and use Java just to run the refresh
functions.
Talking about sort_mem config, I used 65000 but in the
TPCH specification they said that you are not able to
change the configs when you start the benchmark, is
that a big problem
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be a moot point, since you've stated that changing the loop timing
> won't solve the problem, but what about making the test part of make? I
> don't think too many systems are going to change processor architectures once
> in production, and th
Tom,
> Having to recompile to run on single- vs dual-processor machines doesn't
> seem like it would fly.
Oh, I don't know. Many applications require compiling for a target
architecture; SQL Server, for example, won't use a 2nd processor without
re-installation. I'm not sure about Oracle.
I
Ð ÐÑÐ, 22.04.2004, Ð 17:54, Tom Lane ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> Eduardo Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > About 7hs:30min to load the data and 16:09:25 to
> > create the indexes
>
> You could probably improve the index-create time by temporarily
> increasing sort_mem. It wouldn't be unreasonable to give CREA
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > Having to recompile to run on single- vs dual-processor machines doesn't
> > seem like it would fly.
>
> Oh, I don't know. Many applications require compiling for a target
> architecture; SQL Server, for example, won't use a 2nd processor without
> re-installati
The planner is guessing that scanning in rec_id order will produce a
matching row fairly quickly (sooner than selecting all the matching
rows
and sorting them would do). It's wrong in this case, but I'm not sure
it could do better without very detailed cross-column statistics.
Am I
right to gues
Markus Bertheau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You could probably improve the index-create time by temporarily
>> increasing sort_mem. It wouldn't be unreasonable to give CREATE INDEX
>> several hundred meg to work in. (You don't want sort_mem that big
>> normally, because there may be many sorts
Hi
We are in the process of building a new machine for our production
database. Below you will see some of the harware specs for the machine.
I need some help with setting these parameters (shared buffers,
effective cache, sort mem) in the pg_conf file. Also can anyone explain
the differen
Eduardo Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> About 7hs:30min to load the data and 16:09:25 to
> create the indexes
You could probably improve the index-create time by temporarily
increasing sort_mem. It wouldn't be unreasonable to give CREATE INDEX
several hundred meg to work in. (You don't wan
...and on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:53:18AM -0700, Eduardo Almeida used the keyboard:
>
> - The configuration of the machine is:
> Dual opteron 64 bits model 240
> 4GB RAM
> 960 GB on RAID 0
> Mandrake Linux 64 with Kernel 2.6.5 (I compiled a
> kernel for this test)
> Java SDK java version "1.4.2_
Eduardo Almeida wrote:
Folks,
I’m doing the 100GB TPC-H and I’ll show the previous
results to our community (Postgres) in 3 weeks before
finishing the study.
My intention is to carry through a test with a VLDB in
a low cost platform (PostgreSQL, Linux and cheap HW)
and not to compare with another
Grega,
That´s why I used java 32bits and needed to compile
the kernel 2.6.5 with the 32bits modules.
To reference, Sun has java 64bits just to IA64 and
Solaris Sparc 64 not to Opteron.
regards,
Eduardo
--- Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...and on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:53:18AM -0700,
Folks,
Im doing the 100GB TPC-H and Ill show the previous
results to our community (Postgres) in 3 weeks before
finishing the study.
My intention is to carry through a test with a VLDB in
a low cost platform (PostgreSQL, Linux and cheap HW)
and not to compare with another DBMS.
So far I can te
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My hypothesis is that if you spin approximately the same or more time
> than the average time it takes to get finished with the shared resource
> then this should reduce cs.
The only thing we use spinlocks for nowadays is to protect LWLocks, so
the "averag
Paul Tuckfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I used the taskset command:
>> taskset 01 -p
>> taskset 01 -p
>>
>> I guess that 0 and 1 are the two cores (pipelines? hyper-threads?) on
>> the first Xeon processor in the box.
AFAICT, what you've actually done here is to bind both backends to the
More data
On a dual xeon with HTT enabled:
I tried increasing the NUM_SPINS to 1000 and it works better.
NUM_SPINLOCKS CS ID pgbench
100 250K59% 230 TPS
1000125K55% 228 TPS
This is certainly heading in the right direction ? Although it lo
27 matches
Mail list logo
