Hi.
Has anybody tried the new Sun cool-thread servers t1000/t2000 from
Sun? I'd love to see benchmarks with Solaris 10 and pg 8.1.
regards
Claus
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
How big a VPS would I need to run a Postgres DB.
I need a Postgres database with about 15 tables that will run on a
single virtual private server.
The 15 tables will be spread over three tablespaces (5 tables per
tablespace) and be accessed by three different applications running on
different
I may be able to organize a test on a T2000 if someone could give
advice as to an appropriate test to run...
Cheers,
Neil
On 3/6/06, Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
Has anybody tried the new Sun cool-thread servers t1000/t2000 from
Sun? I'd love to see benchmarks with Solaris 10
Hello,
While doing performance tests on Windows Server 2003 we observed to following
two problems.
Environment: J2EE application running in JBoss application server, against
pgsql 8.1 database. Load is caused by a smallish number of (very) complex
transactions, typically about 5-10
On 3/6/06, Nagita Karunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How big a VPS would I need to run a Postgres DB.
One application will add about 500 orders per day
Another will access this data to create and send about 500 emails per day
A third will access this data to create an after-sales survey
Nagita Karunaratne wrote:
How big a VPS would I need to run a Postgres DB.
I need a Postgres database with about 15 tables that will run on a
single virtual private server.
The 15 tables will be spread over three tablespaces (5 tables per
tablespace) and be accessed by three different
Hi,
Below are some results of running pgbench, run on a machine that is doing
nothing else than running PostgreSQL woth pgbench. The strange thing is that
the results are *constantly alternating* hight (750-850 transactions)and low
(50-80 transactions), no matter how many test I run. If I wait
Thanks for the replies,
From personal experience, would you run Postgres on a linux machine
(NOT a vps) with 512MB of ram?
Assumining I can keep all my data in memory.
Thanks,
Nagita
My problem with running PG inside of a VPS was that the VPS used a
virtual filesystem... basically, a single
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
On 3/6/06, Nagita Karunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How big a VPS would I need to run a Postgres DB.
One application will add about 500 orders per day
Another will access this data to create and send about 500 emails per day
A third will access
Hi Michael,
Thanls for your response.
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:29:49PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Below are some results of running pgbench, run on a machine that
is doing nothing else than running PostgreSQL woth pgbench. The
strange thing is that the results are
On 3/6/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
My problem with running PG inside of a VPS was that the VPS used a
virtual filesystem... basically, a single file that had been formatted
and loop mounted so that it looked like a regular hard
Clustering solutions for PostgreSQL are currently pretty limited. Slony
could be a good option in the future, but it currently only supports
Master-Slave replication (not true clustering) and in my experience is a
pain to set up and administer. Bizgres MPP has a lot of promise,
especially for
Suggestions for benchmarks on Sun Fire T2000...
* Don't try DSS or TPC-H type of test with Postgres on Sun Fire T2000
Since such queries tend to have one connection, it will perform badly
with Postgre since it will use only one hardware virtual CPU of the
available 32 virtual CPU on Sun Fire
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:46:05PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Michael Fuhr wrote:
What's your setting?
Default.
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
Are your test results more consistent
if you execute CHECKPOINT between them?
There seems to be many posts on this issue but I not yet found an answer to the
seq scan issue.
I am having an issue with a joins. I am using 8.0.3 on FC4
Query: select * from ommemberrelation where srcobj='somevalue' and dstobj in
(select objectid from omfilesysentry where
On mán, 2006-03-06 at 13:46 -0500, Harry Hehl wrote:
Query: select * from ommemberrelation where srcobj='somevalue'
and dstobj in (select objectid from omfilesysentry where name='dir15_file80');
Columns srcobj, dstobj name are all indexed.
On 06.03.2006, at 21:10 Uhr, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
Like migrate all your postgresql databases to one T2000. You might
see that your average response time may not be faster but it can
handle probably all your databases migrated to one T2000.
In essence, your single thread performance will
pgbench according to me is more io write intensive benchmark.
T2000 with its internal drive may not perform well with pgbench with a
high load. If you are using external storage, try it out.
I havent tried it out yet but let me know what you see.
-Jignesh
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On
Hi everyone,
I'm experimenting with PostgreSQL, but since I'm no expert DBA, I'm
experiencing some performance issues.
Please take a look at the following query:
SELECT
/*groups.name AS t2_r1,
groups.id AS t2_r3,
groups.user_id AS t2_r0,
groups.pretty_url AS t2_r2,
locations.postal_code
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:00:25PM +0100, PFC wrote:
Bitmap index scan is bliss. Many thanks to the postgres team ! Now
searching in tables with a lot of fields and conditions is no longer a
pain.
And just a thought :
SELECT * FROM table WHERE category IN (1,2,3)
i.v.r. wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm experimenting with PostgreSQL, but since I'm no expert DBA, I'm
experiencing some performance issues.
Please take a look at the following query:
SELECT
/*groups.name AS t2_r1,
groups.id AS t2_r3,
groups.user_id AS t2_r0,
groups.pretty_url AS t2_r2,
Chris escribió:
Have you done an 'analyze' or 'vacuum analyze' over these tables?
A left outer join gets *everything* from the second table:
LEFT OUTER JOIN groups ON groups.id = locations.group_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN schools ON schools.location_id = locations.id
So they will load everything
[Please copy the mailing list on replies.]
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:38:20PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Michael Fuhr wrote:
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
Yes, I have tweaked the following settings:
shared_buffers =
Harry Hehl wrote:
There seems to be many posts on this issue but I not yet found an answer to the
seq scan issue.
I am having an issue with a joins. I am using 8.0.3 on FC4
Query: select * from ommemberrelation where srcobj='somevalue' and dstobj in
(select objectid from omfilesysentry
24 matches
Mail list logo
