Re: [PERFORM] How to improve Postgres performance

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Hemant Pandey wrote: > So please tell me how can i improve database performance through > configuration parameters. I had tried to change parameters in > postgresql.conf file but of no avail. > Now i am trying to Auto Vacuum, but don't know how to run Auto Vacuum. The most im

[PERFORM] How to improve Postgres performance

Hi All, I am running an application, which connects to the postgres database at initialization time and perform the database operations like Select/Update. Database queries are very simple. On analyzing my application through Quantifier( Performance analyzing tool), I found the most

Re: [PERFORM] shared buffers

Carlos Henrique Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I heard something about that Redhat 9 can´t handle very well RAM higher than > 2GB. Is it right? RHL 9 is certainly pretty long in the tooth. Why aren't you using a more recent distro? regards, tom lane --

Re: [PERFORM] shared buffers

I forgot to say that it´s a 12GB database... That's actually not that large. Ok, I´ll set shared buffers to 30.000 pages but even so "meminfo" and "top" shouldn´t show some shared pages? Yeah. The reason for not setting buffers so high is because PostgreSQL cannot efficiently manage huge sh

Re: [PERFORM] shared buffers

I forgot to say that it´s a 12GB database...   Ok, I´ll set shared buffers to 30.000 pages but even so "meminfo" and "top" shouldn´t show some shared pages?   I heard something about that Redhat 9 can´t handle very well RAM higher than 2GB. Is it right? Thanks in advance!   Reimer Christopher King

Re: [PERFORM] shared buffers

I´ve configured postgresql to use 1GB of shared buffers but meminfo and "top" are indicanting 0 shared buffers page. Why? 1GB shared buffers is far too much. Set it back to like 3 buffers max... Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have

Re: [PERFORM] Weird performance drop after VACUUM

Michael, The effective_cache_size, random_page_cost, work_mem were set to default. (commented). I have changed the setting of these and now the performance is better see below. "HashAggregate (cost=42573.89..42925.52 rows=20093 width=37) (actual time=5273.984..5430.733 rows=55717 loops=1)" " ->

Re: [PERFORM] Performance for relative large DB

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:02PM -0700, tobbe wrote: > Hi Chris. > > Thanks for the answer. > Sorry that i was a bit unclear. > > 1) We update around 20.000 posts per night. Doesn't seem like a lot at all. > 2) What i meant was that we suspect that the DBMS called PervasiveSQL > that we are us

Re: [PERFORM] Weird performance drop after VACUUM

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:07:17AM -0700, asif ali wrote: > The database is on the same system. > What I am doing is only "VACUUM analyze > conversion_table" > > I did the the same thing on a newly created database. > And got the same result. So after "VACUUM analyze" > performance dropped. > Ple

Re: [PERFORM] getting an index to work with partial indices ...

"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But, ti will if I try 'priority = -2' ... what is teh threshhold for using > the index? obviously 10% of the records is too high ... Depends on a lot of factors, but usually somewhere between 1% and 10%. (The new bitmap index scan code in 8.1 shou

Re: [PERFORM] Need indexes on empty tables for good performance ?

Rohan,You should note that in Postgres, indexes are not inherited by child tables.Also, it seems difficult to select from a child table whose name you don't know unless you access the parent. And if you are accessing the data via the parent, I'm reasonably certain that you will find that indexes ar

[PERFORM] getting an index to work with partial indices ...

Try as I might, I can't seem to get it to work ... table has >9million rows in it, I've created an index "using btree ( priority ) where priority < 0;", where the table distribution looks like: priority | count --+- -2 | 138435 -1 | 943250 1 |3416

Re: [PERFORM] Limit + group + join

Tobias wrote: > Splendid :-) Unfortunately we will not be upgrading for some monthes > still, > but anyway I'm happy. This provides yet another good argument for > upgrading > sooner. I'm also happy to see such a perfect match: > > - A problem that can be reduced from beeing complex and >pr

Re: [PERFORM] Weird performance drop after VACUUM

Michael The database is on the same system. What I am doing is only "VACUUM analyze conversion_table" I did the the same thing on a newly created database. And got the same result. So after "VACUUM analyze" performance dropped. Please see this. Runtime changes from "7755.115" to "14859.291" ms

Re: [PERFORM] OSX & Performance

Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 28, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I see -O2 when building PG (CVS tip) on a fully up-to-date 10.4.2 >> machine. Maybe something odd in your environment, like a preset >> CFLAGS setting? > 8.0.3 doesn't have any optimization flags > 8.1beta1 d

Re: [PERFORM] OSX & Performance

On Aug 28, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, can you provide a test case for other people to poke at? I'l try to put one together as small as I can make it. The table in question is roughly 22M rows. There are about 8k rows per timestamp (day granularity). I see -O2 when building

[PERFORM] shared buffers

Hi,   I´ve configured postgresql to use 1GB of shared buffers but meminfo and "top" are indicanting 0 shared buffers page. Why?   It´s a Linux Redhat 9 box with 4GB RAM and postgresql 7.3.   Thanks in advance!   Reimer Yahoo! Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!