Not sure what your hw platform is, but I always used to get fantastic
performance from Compaq Smart Array battery backed cards. Note that I
haven't bought any recently so HP may have "hp invent"-ed them...
But whatever the brand - if you get a swag of battery backed cache you
won't know your
Brian,
> We're looking into getting an Adaptec 2200S or the Megaraid 320 2x
> which have better processors, and hopefully better performance. We
> feel that the use of the AIC7930 as the CPU on the ZCR just doesn't
> cut it and a faster raid controller would work better. Does anyone out
> there
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:11:33AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> sort_mem is already 16384, which I thought would be plenty -- I tried
>> increasing it to 65536 which made exactly zero difference. :-)
> Well, then the next step is increasing the statistical sampling on the 3 join
> columns in that
Steinar,
> sort_mem is already 16384, which I thought would be plenty -- I tried
> increasing it to 65536 which made exactly zero difference. :-)
Well, then the next step is increasing the statistical sampling on the 3 join
columns in that table. Try setting statistics to 500 for each of the 3
I've been using the adaptec ZCR raid cards in our servers for a while
now, mostly small systems with 3 or 6 disks, and we've been very happy
with them. However, we're building a new DB machine with 14 U320 15K
SCA drives, and we've run into a performance bottlenkeck with the ZCR
card where i
Shridhar,
> I suggest you check this first. Check the performance tuning guide..
>
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
>
> That is a starters. As Josh suggested, increase checkpoint segments if you
have
> disk space. Correspondingly WAL disk space requirements go up
This is normal. My personal workstation has been up for 16 days, and it
shows 65 megs used for swap. The linux kernel looks for things that
haven't been accessed in quite a while and tosses them into swap to free
up the memory for other uses.
This isn't PostgreSQL's fault, or anything elses. It
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, farpliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick
>> Hatcher) wrote:
>>> Answered my own question. I gave up the vacuum full after 150 mins. I
>>> was able to export to a file, vacuum full the empty table, a
With pg_autovaccum it's now at 95M swap; averaging 5MB / day increase with same load.
Cache slightly increases or decreases according to top.
--- On Tue 07/13, Matthew T. O'Connor < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Matthew T. O'Connor [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:52:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, it's not missing anything. The number being reported here is the
> number of rows pulled from the plan node --- but this plan node is on
> the inside of a merge join, and one of the properties of merge join is
> that it will do partia
10 matches
Mail list logo
