On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Then they do this to insert the token:
>
> INSERT INTO bayes_token (
> id,
> token,
> spam_count,
> ham_count,
> atime
> ) VALUES (
> ?,
> ?,
> ?,
> ?,
> ?
> ) ON DUPLICATE KEY
> UPDATE
> spam_count = GREATEST(spam_count +
zOn Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> >
> > I had a look at your data -- thanks.
> >
> > I have a question though: put_token() is invoked 120596 times in your
> > benchmark... for 616 messages. That's nearly 200 queries (not even
> > counting the 1-8 (??) inside
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:13 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
> Ok, I finally got some test data together so that others can test
> without installing SA.
>
> The schema and test dataset is over at
> http://www.aptalaska.net/~matt.s/bayes/bayesBenchmark.tar.gz
>
> I have a pretty fast machine w
Secondly, the project table has *never* had anything in it. So where
are these numbers coming from?
pg_statistics
I very much doubt that. I was unable to locate any rows in pg_statistic
where the pg_class.oid for either table matched any row's starelid.
Tom's argument that th
Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> I had a look at your data -- thanks.
>
> I have a question though: put_token() is invoked 120596 times in your
> benchmark... for 616 messages. That's nearly 200 queries (not even
> counting the 1-8 (??) inside the function itself) per message. Something
> doesn't seem ri
On 7/29/05, Karim Nassar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 09:41 +0530, Gnanavel S wrote:>> Joined:>> test=> explain analyze> test->SELECT cli_name,order.*>
test->
FROM order>
test->
JOIN client ON (ord_client =
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 09:41 +0530, Gnanavel S wrote:
>
> Joined:
>
> test=> explain analyze
> test->SELECT cli_name,order.*
> test-> FROM order
> test-> JOIN client ON (ord_client = cli_code)
> test-
Gnanavel S wrote:
reindex the tables separately.
Reindexing should not affect this problem, anyway.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining co
On 7/29/05, Karim Nassar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I ran into a situation today maintaining someone else's code where thesum time running 2 queries seems to be faster than 1. The original codewas split into two queries. I thought about joining them, butconsidering the intelligence of my predecesso
On 7/28/05, Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gnanavel S wrote:>>> vacuum & reindex the department and project table as the planner> expects there are 1060 rows but actually returning nothing.I guess I should have mentioned that I have been vacuuming and
reindexing at least once a week, and
Mark,
On 7/28/05 4:43 PM, "Mark Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any recommendations for Qlogic controllers on Linux, scsi or
> fiber channel? I might be able to my hands on some. I have pci-x slots
> for AMD, Itanium, or POWER5 if the architecture makes a difference.
I don't have
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Karim Nassar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:35 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I put the rest of the schema up at
> >>http://www.aptalaska.net/~matt.s/bayes/bayes_pg.sql in case someone
> >>needs to see it too.
> >
> >
> > Do you h
>>> Can you post the "time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=50"
>>> results? Also do the reverse (read the file) with "time dd if=bigfile
>>> of=/dev/null bs=8k".
>
> I didn't see this come across before... here ya go:
>
> time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=50
>
> 50+
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 21:01 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
>
> Also, did you run it *lots* of times to make sure that this isn't just
> noise?
If a dozen is lots, yes. :-)
It was very consistent as I repeatedly ran it.
--
Karim Nassar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadc
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:04:25PM -0700, Karim Nassar wrote:
> I ran into a situation today maintaining someone else's code where the
> sum time running 2 queries seems to be faster than 1. The original code
> was split into two queries. I thought about joining them, but
> considering the intellig
Karim Nassar wrote:
> I ran into a situation today maintaining someone else's code where the
> sum time running 2 queries seems to be faster than 1. The original code
> was split into two queries. I thought about joining them, but
> considering the intelligence of my predecessor, I wanted to test i
Karim Nassar wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:35 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
>
>>I put the rest of the schema up at
>>http://www.aptalaska.net/~matt.s/bayes/bayes_pg.sql in case someone
>>needs to see it too.
>
>
> Do you have sample data too?
>
Ok, I finally got some test data togeth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# /sbin/hdparm -tT /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 1816 MB in 2.00 seconds = 908.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 26 MB in 3.11 seconds = 8.36 MB/sec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]#
Can you post the "time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=5000
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 -0700
"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> On 7/22/05 10:11 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The database server is a PE (Power Edge) 6600
> >
> > Database Server IO:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# /sbin/hdparm -tT /dev/sda
I ran into a situation today maintaining someone else's code where the
sum time running 2 queries seems to be faster than 1. The original code
was split into two queries. I thought about joining them, but
considering the intelligence of my predecessor, I wanted to test it.
The question is, which
On 7/28/05 2:21 AM, "Kari Lavikka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a new profiling tool called oprofile:
http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/download/
that can be run without instrumenting the binaries beforehand. To actually
find out what the code is doing during these stalls, oprofile can sho
Steven Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any idea why Postgres would be looking for a clog file name 0FC0 when the
> most recent filename is 04CE?
Corrupt data --- specifically a bad transaction number in a tuple
header. (In practice, this is the first field looked at in which
we can read
Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Secondly, the project table has *never* had anything in it. So where
> are these numbers coming from?
The planner is designed to assume a certain minimum size (10 pages) when
it sees that a table is of zero physical length. The reason for this is
that
I'm alreading running at 1.5. It looks like if I drop the
random_page_cost t0 1.39, it starts using the indexes. Are there any
unseen issues with dropping the random_page_cost this low?
Thanks,
Chris
On 7/28/05, Dan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Chris Hoov
Gnanavel S wrote:
vacuum & reindex the department and project table as the planner
expects there are 1060 rows but actually returning nothing.
I guess I should have mentioned that I have been vacuuming and
reindexing at least once a week, and I did so just before running this test.
Normall
Postgres V7.3.9-2.
While executing a query in psql, the following error was generated:
vsa=# select * from vsa.dtbl_logged_event_20050318 where id=2689472;
PANIC: open of /vsa/db/pg_clog/0FC0 failed: No such file or directory
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably me
On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Chris Hoover wrote:
I did some more testing, and ran the explain analyze on the problem.
In my session I did a set enable_hashjoin = false and then ran the
analyze. This caused it to use the indexes as I have been expecting
it to do.
Now, how can I get it to use
Does anyone have any suggestions on this? I did not get any response
from the admin list.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chris Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 27, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Help with view performance problem
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
I d
Kari Lavikka wrote:
> shared_buffers = 15000
you can play around with this one but in my experience it doesn't make
much difference anymore (it used to).
> work_mem = 1536 # min 64, size in KB
this seems low. are you sure you are not getting sorts swapped to disk?
> fsy
> I'm not sure how much this has been discussed on the list, but wasn't
> able to find anything relevant in the archives.
>
> The new Spamassassin is due out pretty soon. They are currently
testing
> 3.1.0pre4. One of the things I hope to get out of this release is
bayes
> word stats moved to a
> effective_cache_size = 100 # typically 8KB each
I have this setting on postgresql 7.4.8 on FreeBSD with 4 GB RAM:
effective_cache_size = 27462
So eventhough your machine runs Debian and you have four times as much
RAM as mine your effective_cache_size is 36 times larger. You could
try low
On 7/28/05, Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all;I have a customer who currently uses an application which had becomeslow. After doing some digging, I found the slow query:SELECT c.accno, c.description, c.link, c.category, ac.project_id,p.projectnumber
,a.department_id, d.descri
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Kari Lavikka wrote:
> ->8 Relevant rows from postgresql.conf 8<-
>
> shared_buffers = 15000 # min 16, at least max_connections*2, 8KB each
> work_mem = 1536 # min 64, size in KB
As an aside, I'd increase work_mem -
Hello,
we recently upgraded our dual Xeon Dell to a brand new Sun v40z with 4
opterons, 16GB of memory and MegaRAID with enough disks. OS is Debian
Sarge amd64, PostgreSQL is 8.0.3. Size of database is something like 80GB
and our website performs about 600 selects and several updates/inserts a
34 matches
Mail list logo
