Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Greg Quinn wrote:
The query is,
select * from users
which returns 4 varchar fields, there is no where clause
Yes, I am running the default postgres config. Basically I have been a
MySQL user and thought I would like to check out PostGreSql. So I did
a quick performan
Greg Quinn wrote:
The query is,
select * from users
which returns 4 varchar fields, there is no where clause
Yes, I am running the default postgres config. Basically I have been a
MySQL user and thought I would like to check out PostGreSql. So I did
a quick performance test. The performance
Via insert
When you do the population, is it via inserts or copy?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 19
The query is,
select * from users
which returns 4 varchar fields, there is no where clause
Yes, I am running the default postgres config. Basically I have been a MySQL
user and thought I would like to check out PostGreSql. So I did a quick
performance test. The performance was so different th
If your looking for suggestions, I would suggest updating the 8.1.x you
have installed to the latest version, as of typing this is 8.1.3 ;) Most
notable is some of the -bug- fixes that are in since 8.1.0, for example;
* Fix incorrect optimizations of outer-join conditions (Tom)
You know, mi
george young wrote:
[PostgreSQL 8.1.0 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.0.1]
I have a simple join on two tables that takes way too long. Can you help
me understand what's wrong? There are indexes defined on the relevant columns.
I just did a fresh vacuum --full --analyze on the
""Jim C. Nasby"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> It's not dedicated to discussing MVCC alone, but
>
http://www.pervasive-postgres.com/lp/newsletters/2005/Insights_opensource_Dec.asp#2
> might provide you with some useful info.
> --
Another introduction is here:
http://www.postgresql.org/files/dev
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:pgsql-performance-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steinar H. Gunderson
> A merge join requires sorted inputs.
>
> > Most of the time was spent sorting the parameters parameters table
by
> > opset_num even though opset_num is indexed
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:27:39PM +0200, Antoine wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know of any fairly entry-level documentation for the
> benefits-drawbacks of MVCC in the db? As it relates to performance?
> Postgres vs the others?
> Cheers
> Antoine
It's not dedicated to discussing MVCC alone, but
http
Heh, too quick on the send button...
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:42:51PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> I'll only speak about MyISAM. MySQL == MyISAM. InnoDB is useless :
> if you want transactions, use postgres.
> If you say to yourself "oh yeah, but it would be cool to use a
> MyI
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:42:51PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> However, throw in some maintenance operation which involves a long
> query with writes (like a big joined UPDATE) and all access to your
> website is blocked while the query lasts.
> This is worsened by the fact that MySQL
What really makes innodb useless to me is that there's no real support
for proper operation by MySQL itself. If you could force MySQL to only
use innodb tables, and to NEVER do the wrong things syntactically, it
would be ok. But there are thousands of foot-guns in the MySQL
That's wh
So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesses. The write in dis
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:17:49 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> threw this fish to the penguins:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:22 -0500, george young wrote:
>
> > work_mem= 1024
>
> Set that higher.
>
> Try a couple of other plans using enable_* and let us have the EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE plans.
I tr
Marcos wrote:
So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesse
This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
itself. You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) and you'll want to look
Well, anybody who uses PHP and cares about performance is already using
lighttpd,
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 13:42, PFC wrote:
> > This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
> > itself. You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
> > connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) and you'll want to look
>
> Well, anybody who uses PHP a
> So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesses. The write in disc
Hi,
Does anyone know of any fairly entry-level documentation for the
benefits-drawbacks of MVCC in the db? As it relates to performance?
Postgres vs the others?
Cheers
Antoine
--
This is where I should put some witty comment.
---(end of broadcast)--
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 09:31, Marcos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
> robust.
>
> In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
> Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
> working in the web but
Marcos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
> robust.
>
> In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
> Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
> working in the web but in our application we are est
Hi,
I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
robust.
In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
working in the web but in our application we are estimating many access
simultaneo
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:22 -0500, george young wrote:
> work_mem= 1024
Set that higher.
Try a couple of other plans using enable_* and let us have the EXPLAIN
ANALYZE plans.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 02:14:00PM +0200, Greg Quinn wrote:
Hello,
I have just installed PostGreSql 8.1 on my Windows XP PC. I created a
simple table called users with 4 varchar fields.
I am using the OleDb connection driver. In my .NET application, I populate
3000 recor
Is there some other unique key you can test on?
Take a look at http://lnk.nu/cvs.distributed.net/8qt.sql lines 169-216
for an exammple. In this case we use a different method for assigning
IDs than you probably will, but the idea remains.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:59:49AM -0500, ashah wrote:
> I
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:20:19AM -0600, Dave Dutcher wrote:
> I guess what I am really curious about is why was the OP getting an
> expensive sort when the planner tried a merge join?
A merge join requires sorted inputs.
> Most of the time was spent sorting the parameters parameters table by
>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 02:14:00PM +0200, Greg Quinn wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just installed PostGreSql 8.1 on my Windows XP PC. I created a
> simple table called users with 4 varchar fields.
>
> I am using the OleDb connection driver. In my .NET application, I populate
> 3000 records into th
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:29:08PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:18:25AM -0600, Dave Dutcher wrote:
> >> "parameters_idx" btree (run, opset_num, step_num, opset,
> > opset_ver,
> >> step, step_ver, name, split, wafers)
> >> "parameters_opset_idx" btree (ops
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:20:54PM -0700, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> Does that mean that even though autovacuum is turned on, you still
> should do a regular vacuum analyze periodically?
Doing a periodic vacuumdb -avz and keeping an eye on the last few lines
isn't a bad idea. It would also be he
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:pgsql-performance-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steinar H. Gunderson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:29 AM
>
> An index on (A,B,C) can be used for a query on (A,B) or (A), so it
doesn't
> really matter. It isn't usable for a que
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:18:25AM -0600, Dave Dutcher wrote:
>> "parameters_idx" btree (run, opset_num, step_num, opset,
> opset_ver,
>> step, step_ver, name, split, wafers)
>> "parameters_opset_idx" btree (opset, step, name)
>> "parameters_step_idx" btree (step, name)
> Have you tried
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:pgsql-performance-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of george young
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:48 PM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: [PERFORM] simple join uses indexes, very slow
>
[Snip]
>
> Indexes:
> "pa
Hi, ashah,
ashah wrote:
> I tried this solution, but ran into following problem.
>
> The temp_table has columns (col1, col2, col3).
>
> The original_table has columns (col0, col1, col2, col3)
> Now the extra col0 on the original_table is the unique generated ID by
> the database.
INSERT INTO o
I tried this solution, but ran into following problem.
The temp_table has columns (col1, col2, col3).
The original_table has columns (col0, col1, col2, col3)
Now the extra col0 on the original_table is the unique generated ID by the
database.
How can I make your suggestions work in that case .
Hi, George,
george young wrote:
>>Looks like a hash join might be faster. What is your work_mem set to?
>
> work_mem= 1024
This is 1 Megabyte. By all means, increase it, if possible.
HTH,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Developme
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:30:54 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> threw this fish to the penguins:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:47 -0500, george young wrote:
>
> > Table sizes: parameters has 2.1512e+07 tuples, run_opsets has 211745 tuples.
> >
> > explain analyze SELECT ro.run, ro.opset_num, p.s
On 3/28/06, Greg Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using the OleDb connection driver. In my .NET application, I populate
> 3000 records into the table to test PostGreSql's speed. It takes about 3-4
> seconds.
have you tried:
1. npgsql .net data provider
2. odbc ado.net bridge
merlin
--
Hello,
I have just installed PostGreSql 8.1 on my Windows XP PC. I created a simple
table called users with 4 varchar fields.
I am using the OleDb connection driver. In my .NET application, I populate
3000 records into the table to test PostGreSql's speed. It takes about 3-4
seconds.
Even
Gábriel Ákos wrote:
> I thought that too. Autovacuum is running on our system but it didn't do
> the trick. Anyway the issue is solved, thank you all for helping. :)
Hi, Gabriel, it may be that your Free Space Map (FSM) setting is way to
low.
Try increasing it.
Btw, VACUUM outputs a Warning if
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:47 -0500, george young wrote:
> Table sizes: parameters has 2.1512e+07 tuples, run_opsets has 211745 tuples.
>
> explain analyze SELECT ro.run, ro.opset_num, p.step_num FROM run_opsets ro,
> parameters p WHERE ro.run = p.run AND ro.opset_num = p.opset_num and
> ro.run='
40 matches
Mail list logo
