Just couple of suggestions:
I think on the current server you're pretty much hosed since you are
look like you are cpu bottlenecked. You probably should take a good
look at PITR and see if that meets your requirements. Also you
definately want to go to 8.1...it's faster, and every bit helps.
G
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:05 -0400, John Vincent wrote:
Now I've been told by our DBA that we should have been able to wholy
satisfy that query via the indexes.
DB2 can satisfy the query using only indexes because DB2 doesn't do
MVCC.
You can get pretty much the same effect
Given the fact that most SATA drives have only an 8MB cache, and your RAID controller should have at least 64MB, I would argue that the system with the RAID controller should always be faster. If it's not, you're getting short-changed somewhere, which is typical on linux, because the drivers just
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 18:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree with Brian's suspicion that the SATA drive isn't properly
> fsync'ing to disk, resulting in bogusly high throughput. However,
> ISTM a well-configured SAN ought to be able to match even the bogus
> throughput, because it should be able t
decibel=# create index test on i ( sum(i) );ERROR: cannot use aggregate function in index _expression_
decibel=#BTW, there have been a number of proposals to negate the effect of nothaving visibility info in indexes. Unfortunately, none of them have cometo fruition yet, mostly because it's a very
Brian Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Allen wrote:
>> To simplify greatly - single local SATA disk beats EMC SAN by factor
>> of four.
> I'm actually in a not dissimiliar position here- I was seeing the
> performance of Postgres going to an EMC Raid over iSCSI running at about
> 1/2 the
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 03:43:09PM -0400, John Vincent wrote:
> >Any suggestions? FYI the original question wasn't meant as a poke at
> >comparing PG to MySQL to DB2. I'm not making an yvalue judgements either
> >way. I'm just trying to understand how we can use it the best way possible.
> >
> >If
On 6/15/06, Tim Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is that expected performance, anyone? It doesn't sound right to me. Doesanyone have any clues about what might be going on? Buggy kerneldrivers? Buggy kernel, come to think of it? Does a SAN just not provide
adequate performance for a large database?
Tim Allen wrote:
We have a customer who are having performance problems. They have a
large (36G+) postgres 8.1.3 database installed on an 8-way opteron
with 8G RAM, attached to an EMC SAN via fibre-channel (I don't have
details of the EMC SAN model, or the type of fibre-channel card at the
mo
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 16:50, Tim Allen wrote:
> We have a customer who are having performance problems. They have a
> large (36G+) postgres 8.1.3 database installed on an 8-way opteron with
> 8G RAM, attached to an EMC SAN via fibre-channel (I don't have details
> of the EMC SAN model, or the ty
We have a customer who are having performance problems. They have a
large (36G+) postgres 8.1.3 database installed on an 8-way opteron with
8G RAM, attached to an EMC SAN via fibre-channel (I don't have details
of the EMC SAN model, or the type of fibre-channel card at the moment).
They're runn
Any suggestions? FYI the original question wasn't meant as a poke at comparing PG to MySQL to DB2. I'm not making an yvalue judgements either way. I'm just trying to understand how we can use it the best way possible.
If anyone from the bizgres team is watching, have they done any work in this area
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:21, John Vincent wrote:
> On 6/15/06, Mark Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately SUM is in the same boat as COUNT; in order for
> it to
> return a meaningful result it must inspect visibility
> information for
> all of the
On 6/15/06, Mark Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately SUM is in the same boat as COUNT; in order for it toreturn a meaningful result it must inspect visibility information forall of the rows.-- MarkWe'll this is interesting news to say the least. We went with PostgreSQL for our warehouse
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:46 -0400, John Vincent wrote:
> One question that we came up with is how does this affect other
> aggregate functions like MAX,MIN,SUM and whatnot? Being that this is
> our data warehouse, we use these all the time. As I've said
> previously, I didn't know a human could ge
On 6/15/06, Mark Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DB2 can satisfy the query using only indexes because DB2 doesn't doMVCC.Although MVCC is generally a win in terms of making the database easierto use and applications less brittle, it also means that the database
must inspect the visibility informat
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:05 -0400, John Vincent wrote:
> Now I've been told by our DBA that we should have been able to wholy
> satisfy that query via the indexes.
DB2 can satisfy the query using only indexes because DB2 doesn't do
MVCC.
Although MVCC is generally a win in terms of making the dat
Jim C. Nasby írta:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 06:31:02AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Jim C. Nasby ?rta:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:30:10PM +0200, B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
Replacing random() with a true constant gives me index scan
even if it's hidden inside other function c
I'm not a programmer so understanding the optimizer code is WAY beyond my limits.My question, that I haven't seen answered elsewhere, is WHAT things can affect the choice of an index scan over a sequence scan. I understand that sometimes a sequence scan is faster and that you still have to get the
In response to Dan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> both of the two database are live but use for two different web app.
> >> my company don't want to spend more to buy a new server, so then I think of
> >> to implement both under the same server and one instance
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
Vivek,
Thanks for your feedback. Which Dell server did you purchase?
I have many many dell rackmounts: 1550, 1650, 1750, 1850, and SC1425
and throw in a couple of 2450.
I *really* like the 1850 with built-in SCSI RAID. It is fast enough
t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
both of the two database are live but use for two different web app.
my company don't want to spend more to buy a new server, so then I think of
to implement both under the same server and one instance..
Just as an anecdote, I am running 30 databases on a single i
Added to TODO:
> o Fix memory leak from exceptions
>
>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-06/msg0$
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "jody brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > B
Vivek,
Thanks for your feedback. Which Dell server did you purchase?
The client has a PowerEdge 2600 and they STILL want Dell. Again, if it
were my pocketbook, Dell would not be there.
The client has a 30GB DB. This is large for me, but probably not with
you. Also, I am advising the client t
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 11:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "jody brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When postgresql starts to go into this bloating state, I can only make it
> > happen from my java app.
>
> That's interesting. The JDBC driver uses protocol features that aren't
> used by psql, s
On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
CPUs and/or Dell's new servers?
I'm one of the few Dell fans around here... but I must say that I
don't buy them for my big DB servers specifically since they don't
curren
"jody brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW - the fix you mentioned is that targeted for 8.2? Is there a
> timeline for 8.2?
There is no fix as yet, but it's on the radar screen to fix for 8.2.
We expect 8.2 will go beta towards the end of summer (I forget whether
Aug 1 or Sep 1 is th
Tom - that make sense... and fits the timeline of when the instability may have
been introduced.
I use soft references in java to track these relationships. When the GC needs
memory it will collect
objects referenced by soft references so I need to have this exception caught
where my caches may
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 06:31:02AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby ?rta:
> >On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:30:10PM +0200, B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> >
> >>Replacing random() with a true constant gives me index scan
> >>even if it's hidden inside other function calls. E.g.:
> >>
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:14:26AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 23:33:53 -0400, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In fact the benefit of the NVRAM is precisely that it makes sure you
> >*don't*
> >have any reason to turn fsync off. It should make the fsync essentially
> >
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:36:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... worksforme. Could you provide a complete test case?
>
> > decibel=# create table date_test(d date not null, i int not null);
> > [etc]
>
"jody brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BEGIN
> INSERT into attacker_target_link (attacker_id, target_id) values
> (p_attacker, v_target);
> v_returns_size := v_returns_size + 1;
> v_returns[v_returns_size] := v_target;
> EXCEPTION WHEN un
"jody brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When postgresql starts to go into this bloating state, I can only make it
> happen from my java app.
That's interesting. The JDBC driver uses protocol features that aren't
used by psql, so it's possible that the leak is triggered by one of
those feat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is it possible to start two instances of postgresql with different port and
> directory which run simultaneously?
Certainly. We have one HACMP cluster which hosts 14 PostgreSQL
instances across two physical boxes. (If one went down, they'd all
migrate to the survivor.
Some more information...
When postgresql starts to go into this bloating state, I can only make it
happen from my java app.
If I simultaneously perform insert of 10million rows into another table, it
behaves as expected, but
the postgresql process handling the java connection slows down and blo
"Mindaugas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible to somehow analyze function performance? E.g.
> we are using function cleanup() which takes obviously too much time
> to execute but I have problems trying to figure what is slowing things
> down.
> When I explain analyze function lines
It depends what is the purpose of the function. If it's mainly a
container for a heap of SQL queries along with some simple IF, ELSE
etc. then I use two simple ways to analyze the performance (or lack
of performance):
1) I use a lot of debug messages
2) I print out all SQL and the execute EXPLAIN
Hello,
Is it possible to somehow analyze function performance? E.g.
we are using function cleanup() which takes obviously too much time
to execute but I have problems trying to figure what is slowing things
down.
When I explain analyze function lines step by step it show quite
acceptable p
The last version of postgres we had in production was 8.1.1 actually, not
8.1.3.
So far, on my stability box and older production stability boxes I dont see the
same behavior.
I will install 8.1.1 on these boxes and see what I see.
On Thursday 15 June 2006 09:01, jody brownell wrote:
> Sorry
Sorry about that, I was in a slight panic :)
I am using postgresql 8.1.4. I will install 8.1.3 and see if the same behavior
exists.. we
may have started seeing this in 8.1.3, but I dont think before. I will check
some stability
machines for similar bloating.
The query (calling a store proc)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> both of the two database are live but use for two different web app.
> my company don't want to spend more to buy a new server, so then I think of
> to implement both under the same server and one instance..
> but then my superior don't want to do that way.
> they want
both of the two database are live but use for two different web app.
my company don't want to spend more to buy a new server, so then I think of
to implement both under the same server and one instance..
but then my superior don't want to do that way.
they want to implement two databases in o
am 15.06.2006, um 14:34:51 +0800 mailte [EMAIL PROTECTED] folgendes:
>
>
>
>
> so what is the best way to implement two databases in one machine?
> implement with two postgresql instances with separate directory or
> implement under one instance?
What do you want to do?
Do you need 2 separate
43 matches
Mail list logo
