On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:34:24AM -0600, Carl Youngblood wrote:
> The relevant portion of my sysctl.conf file looks like this:
>
> kernel.shmall = 2097152
> kernel.shmmax = 2147483648
> kernel.shmmni = 4096
> kernel.sem = 250 32000 100 128
> fs.file-max = 65536
>
> I understood it was a good ide
Everyone,
I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is
connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am
not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
scsi disc
array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16
"Peter Hardman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in the process of migrating a Paradox 7/BDE 5.01 database from
> single-user
> Paradox to a web based interface to either MySQL or PostgreSQL.
> The query I run is:
> /* Select all sheep who's most recent transfer was into the subject flock */
>
On 16 Aug 2006 at 20:02, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 16-8-2006 18:48, Peter Hardman wrote:
> > Using identically structured tables and the same primary key, if I run this
> > on
> > Paradox/BDE it takes about 120ms, on MySQL (5.0.24, local server) about
> > 3ms,
> > and on PostgresSQL (8
I had enable_seqscan turned OFF; With enable_seqscan turned ON it takes only 6
minutes to complete
the query and not 44minuts like it did with enable_seqscan turned OFF. THANKS
A LOT!
It's still much more slower than MS SQL server but now it has acceptable times.
Sebastián Baioni
--- Tom
On 8/16/06, Peter Hardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm in the process of migrating a Paradox 7/BDE 5.01 database from single-user
Paradox to a web based interface to either MySQL or PostgreSQL.
The database is a pedigree sheep breed society database recording sheep and
flocks (amongst other thi
On 16-8-2006 18:48, Peter Hardman wrote:
Using identically structured tables and the same primary key, if I run this on
Paradox/BDE it takes about 120ms, on MySQL (5.0.24, local server) about 3ms,
and on PostgresSQL (8.1.3, local server) about 1290ms). All on the same
Windows XP Pro machine wit
I'm in the process of migrating a Paradox 7/BDE 5.01 database from single-user
Paradox to a web based interface to either MySQL or PostgreSQL.
The database is a pedigree sheep breed society database recording sheep and
flocks (amongst other things).
My current problem is with one table and an as
The relevant portion of my sysctl.conf file looks like this:
kernel.shmall = 2097152
kernel.shmmax = 2147483648
kernel.shmmni = 4096
kernel.sem = 250 32000 100 128
fs.file-max = 65536
I understood it was a good idea to set shmmax to half of available
memory (2GB in this case). I assume that I n
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Luiz K. Matsumura
>
>
> Where I can see the current random_page_cost value ? There
> are some hint
> about what value I must set ?
> Thanks in advance.
> Luiz
On Linux the random_page_cost is s
Luke,
Thanks for the tips. I'm running FreeBSD 6.1 amd64, but, I can also
enable readahead on the raid controller, and also adaptive readahead.
Here's tests:
Readahead & writeback enabled:
bash-2.05b$ bonnie++ -d bonnie -s 16000:8k
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential In
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Luiz K. Matsumura
> Well, in this case the queries with LEFT OUTER join and with
> inner join
> returns the same result set. I don´t have the sufficient knowledge to
> affirm , but I suspect that if the query plan used for
Hi Dave,
Thanks to reply.
I run it now in a Postgres 8.1.4 my notebook (win XP) and the
performance is really much better:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT Contrato.Id
, Min( prog.dtsemeio ) AS DtSemIni
, Max( prog.dtsemeio ) AS DtSemFim
, Min( prog.dtembarque ) AS DtEmbIni
, Max(
Hi,
> Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
> here?
Do you know if the figures from bonnie++ are able to measure the
performance related to the overhead of the 'fsync' option? I had
very strange performance differences between two Dell 1850
machines months ago,
Hi, Jim,
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Well, if the controller is caching with a BBU, I'm not sure that order
> matters anymore, because the controller should be able to re-order at
> will. Theoretically. :) But this is why having some actual data posted
> somewhere would be great.
Well, actually, the c
15 matches
Mail list logo