[PERFORM] Beginner optimization questions, esp. regarding Tsearch2 configuration

I'm trying to optimize a resume search engine that is using Tsearch2 indexes. It's running on a dual-opteron 165 system with 4GB of ram and a raid1 3Gb/sec SATA array. Each text entry is about 2-3K of text, and there are about 23,000 rows in the search table, with a goal of reaching about 100,00

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

Jim, I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. Steve On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:05 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: > > Luke, > > > > I thought so. In my test, I tried to be fair/equal si

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

Scott,Do you know how to activate the writeback on the RAID controller from HP?SteveOn 8/9/06, Scott Marlowe < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:11, Steve Poe wrote: > Jim,>> I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS> configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to en

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

 I believe it does, I'll need to check.Thanks for the correction. Steve On 8/9/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:11, Steve Poe wrote:> Jim,>> I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS> configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable writeba

Re: [PERFORM] shared_buffer optimization

"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Every single piece of advice I've seen on shared_buffers comes from the > 7.x era, when our buffer management was extremely simplistic. IMO all of > that knowledge was made obsolete when 8.0 came out, and our handling of > shared_buffers has improved eve

Re: [PERFORM] [BUGS] BUG #2567: High IOWAIT

This isn't a bug; moving to pgsql-performance. On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:42:02AM +, kumarselvan wrote: > i have installed the postgres as mentioned in the Install file. it is a 4 > cpu 8 GB Ram Machine installed with Linux Enterprise version 3. when i am > running a load which will perfrom 40

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:50:30PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on > > > your RAID controller. In fact, I'

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on > > your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID > > controller for xlog with its own c

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:11, Steve Poe wrote: > Jim, > > I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS > configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable writeback. It may have > been mislabled cache accelerator where you can give a percentage to > read/write. That aspect did not

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on > your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID > controller for xlog with its own cache hitting a simple mirror set > before I'd spring for

Re: [PERFORM] shared_buffer optimization

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:20:01AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > I'm not aware of any actual evidence having emerged that it is of any > value to set shared buffers higher than 1. http://flightaware.com They saw a large increase in how many concurrent connections they could handle when t

Re: [PERFORM] vacuuming

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:39:56AM +0300, Eugeny N Dzhurinsky wrote: > Hello > > I have pg_autovacuum running with the arguments: > > pg_autovacuum -D -s 120 -v 1 It's been a while since I looked at the pg_autovac settings, but I know that it's threasholds were way, way to high. They were

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

Jim,I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable writeback. It may have been mislabled cache accelerator where you can give a percentage to read/write. That aspect did not change the performance like the LSI MegaRAID adapter does. S

Re: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:20:02PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:02:52PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote: > > Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I > > believe software RAID on linux doesn't either). > > Linux' software RAID does. See

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: > Luke, > > I thought so. In my test, I tried to be fair/equal since my Sun box has two > 4-disc arrays each on their own channel. So, I just used one of them which > should be a little slower than the 6-disc with 192MB cache. > > Inciden

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

and please note, when I'm talking about support, it's not just postgresql support, but also hardware/driver support that can run into these problems I've run into this as well. Generally speaking, the larger the company, the more likely you are to get the "we don't support that" line. /me

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

On Aug 9, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Alex Turner wrote: First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true). *cough* BS *cough* Linux is L

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 11:37, David Lang wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>> Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the most > >>> prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking from a > >>> knowledgeable position. > >> > >> note

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the most prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking from a knowledgeable position. note I said many, not all. I am aware that your company does not fall into this

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the most prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking from a knowledgeable position. note I said many, not all. I am aware that your company does not fall into this catagory. I know, but I am curious as to

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

On 8/9/06, Kenji Morishige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have unlimited rack space, so 2U is not the issue. The boxes are stored in our lab for internal software tools. I'm going to research those boxes you mention. Regarding the JBOD enclosures, are these generally just 2U or 4U units with SCSI

[PERFORM] Dell PowerEdge 2950 performance

Hello,   I’ve recently been tasked with scalability/performance testing of a Dell PowerEdge 2950. This is the one with the new Intel Woodcrest Xeons. Since I haven’t seen any info on this box posted to the list, I figured people might be interested in the results, and maybe in return shar

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: even many of the companies that offer support for postgres have this problem. the explination is always that they can't test every distro out there so they pick a few and support those (this is one of the reasons why Ahh and which companies would th

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Stephen Frost wrote: * David Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: there's a huge difference between 'works on debian' and 'supported on debian'. I do use debian extensivly, (along with slackware on my personal machines), so i am comfortable getting things to work. but 'supported'

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 17:53, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote: > On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Thomas F. O'Connell wrote: > >> On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I am considering a setup such as this: > - At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores ea

Re: [PERFORM] 3-table query optimization

Michal Taborsky - Internet Mall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > SELECT product.product_id >FROM action >JOIN product ON (product.product_id=action.product_id) > WHERE action.shop_group_id=1 > AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 > FROM catalog.product_program > WHERE product_id=prod

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing queries

Patrice Beliveau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> PG 8.1 will not reorder WHERE clauses for a single table unless it has >> some specific reason to do so (and AFAICT no version back to 7.0 or so >> has done so either...) So there's something you are not telling us that >> is releva

[PERFORM] 3-table query optimization

Hello everyone. My (simplified) database structure is: a) table product (15 rows) product_id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY title TEXT ... b) table action (5000 rows) action_id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY product_id BIGINT, FK to product shop_group_id INTEGER (there are about 5 groups, distributed about e

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing queries

I've create a view, same query plan (some number vary a bit, but nothing significant) and same result, closed sales_order are processed Ruben Rubio wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If subquerys are not working I think you should try to create a view with the subquery. Mayb

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good enough

On 8/7/06, Alvaro Nunes Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "we recently upgraded our dual Xeon Dell to a brand new Sun v40z with 4 opterons, 16GB of memory and MegaRAID with enough disks. OS is Debian Sarge amd64, PostgreSQL is 8.0.3." on (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-07/msg

Re: [PERFORM] unsubscribe

In response to "Gourish Singbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: If you look in the mail headers: List-Unsubscribe: -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

Have you ever actually had that happen? I havn't and I've called support for a number of different issues for various commercial software. In the end it might boil down to some distribution-specific issue that they're not willing to fix but honestly that's pretty rare. Very rare, if you are

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good

Alex Turner wrote: First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true). *cough* BS *cough* Linux is Linux. It doesn't matter what trademark you put on top of i

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing queries

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If subquerys are not working I think you should try to create a view with the subquery. Maybe it will work. Patrice Beliveau wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Patrice Beliveau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > SELECT * FROM TABLE > WHERE TABLE.COL

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing queries

Tom Lane wrote: Patrice Beliveau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something AND TABLE.COLUMN2=somethingelse AND function(TABLE.COLUMN3,TABLE.COLUMN4) > 0; I find out that the function process every row even if the row should be rejected as per

Re: [PERFORM] shared_buffer optimization

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So ... I have tried different values. The best one for one day sentences seems to be 24576 IO in vmstat has the lowest values "id" (idle) has the biggest values. I have created an script that executes all day sentences to try that. By the way, could

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware upgraded but performance still ain't good enough

* David Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > there's a huge difference between 'works on debian' and 'supported on > debian'. I do use debian extensivly, (along with slackware on my personal > machines), so i am comfortable getting things to work. but 'supported' > means that when you run into a pr

[PERFORM] Unsubscribe

Unsubscribe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 2006/08/08 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

[PERFORM] unsubscribe

-- Forwarded message --From: Gourish Singbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Aug 9, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: unsubscribeTo: "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" -- Best,  Gourish Singbal -- Best,Gourish Singbal

Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

We were in a similar situation with a similar budget. But we had two requirements, no "deprecated" scsi while the successor SAS is available and preferrably only 3 or 4U of rack space. And it had to have reasonable amounts of disks (at least 12). The two options we finally choose between where