Re: [PERFORM] Deadlock Issue with PostgreSQL

2005-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Anu Kucharlapati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Red Hat Linux release 7.3 > Apache 1.3.20 > PostgreSQL 7.1.3 I'm not sure about Apache, but both the RHL and Postgres versions you are using are stone age --- *please* update. Red Hat stopped supporting that release years ago, and the PG community

[PERFORM] Deadlock Issue with PostgreSQL

2005-09-20 Thread Anu Kucharlapati
Background: We are running a web application on apache with database server as PostgreSQL. The application is a expense claim application with workflow.  The software versions are specified below:   Red Hat Linux release 7.3 Apache 1.3.20 PostgreSQL 7.1.3   Problem: When the applicati

[PERFORM] unsubscribe

2005-09-20 Thread Nelba Sánchez Rojas
unsubscribe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match Nelba Sánchez R. Servicios Tecnológicos de Gestión (STG) Pont

Re: [PERFORM] Planner statistics vs. count(*)

2005-09-20 Thread Bricklen Anderson
evgeny gridasov wrote: > Hi Everybody. > > I am going to replace some 'select count(*) from ... where ...' queries > which run on large tables (10M+ rows) with something like > 'explain select * from ... where ' and parse planner output after that > to find out its forecast about number of row

[PERFORM] Planner statistics vs. count(*)

2005-09-20 Thread evgeny gridasov
Hi Everybody. I am going to replace some 'select count(*) from ... where ...' queries which run on large tables (10M+ rows) with something like 'explain select * from ... where ' and parse planner output after that to find out its forecast about number of rows the query is going to retrieve.

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread evgeny gridasov
We have a production server(8.0.2) running 24x7, 300k+ transactions per day. Linux 2.6.11 / JFS file system. No problems. It works faster than ext3. > Alex Turner wrote: > > > I would also recommend looking at file system. For us JFS worked > > signifcantly > > faster than resier for large r

Re: [PERFORM] Need for speed 2

2005-09-20 Thread Alex Turner
I have found that while the OS may flush to the controller fast with fsync=true, the controller does as it pleases (it has BBU, so I'm not too worried), so you get great performance because your controller is determine read/write sequence outside of what is being demanded by an fsync. Alex Turner

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Alex Turner
I have found JFS to be just fine.  We have been running a medium load on this server for 9 months with no unscheduled down time.  Datbase is about 30gig on disk, and we get about 3-4 requests per second that generate results sets in the thousands from about 8am to about 11pm. I have foudn that JFS

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Welty, Richard
Alex Turner wrote: > I would also recommend looking at file system. For us JFS worked > signifcantly > faster than resier for large read loads and large write loads, so we chose > JFS > over ext3 and reiser. has jfs been reliable for you? there seems to be a lot of conjecture about inst

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Alex Turner
I have benched different sripe sizes with different file systems, and the perfmance differences can be quite dramatic. Theoreticaly a smaller stripe is better for OLTP as you can write more small transactions independantly to more different disks more often than not, but a large stripe size is goo

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Jignesh K. Shah
Typically your stripe size impacts read and write. In Solaris, the trick is to match it with your maxcontig parameter. If you set maxcontig to 128 pages which is 128* 8 = 1024k (1M) then your optimal stripe size is 128 * 8 / (number of spindles in LUN).. Assuming number of spindles is 6 then y

[PERFORM] unsubscribe

2005-09-20 Thread Richard Woo
unsubscribe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread evgeny gridasov
Hi Everybody! I've got a spare machine which is 2xXEON 3.2GHz, 4Gb RAM 14x140Gb SCSI 10k (LSI MegaRaid 320U). It is going into production in 3-5months. I do have free time to run tests on this machine, and I could test different stripe sizes if somebody prepares a test script and data for that.

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Michael Stone
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:51:41AM +0300, Michael Ben-Nes wrote: I must admit im a bit amazed how such important parameter is so ambiguous. an optimal strip size can improve the performance of the db significantly. It's configuration dependent. IME, it has an insignificant effect. If anything

Re: [PERFORM] RAID Stripe size

2005-09-20 Thread Michael Ben-Nes
Hi John A Meinel wrote: bm\mbn wrote: Hi Everyone The machine is IBM x345 with ServeRAID 6i 128mb cache and 6 SCSI 15k disks. 2 disks are in RAID1 and hold the OS, SWAP & pg_xlog 4 disks are in RAID10 and hold the Cluster itself. the DB will have two major tables 1 with 10 million rows