Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sriram Dandapani wrote:
Parent table has a column say column1 which is indexed (parent table and
all child tables are indexed on that column)
In older versions of postgresql that would scan the whole table. In 8.1
and above it doe
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sriram Dandapani wrote:
>> Parent table has a column say column1 which is indexed (parent table and
>> all child tables are indexed on that column)
> In older versions of postgresql that would scan the whole table. In 8.1
> and above it doesn't. How
Sriram Dandapani wrote:
Parent table has a column say column1 which is indexed (parent table and
all child tables are indexed on that column)
Do you mean?
select max(foo) from bar;
In older versions of postgresql that would scan the whole table. In 8.1
and above it doesn't. However, I am gu
Parent table has a column say column1 which is indexed
(parent table and all child tables are indexed on that column)
When a select max(column1) is done on parent table..takes a
very long time to get back with the result
The same query on a child table gives instantaneous response
(the
We recently here picked up a adtx san and are having good results with
it. It's pretty flexible, having dual 4gb fc controllers and also dual
sas controllers do you can run it as attached sas or fc. Both have
their advantages and unfortuantely I didn't have time to do much
benchmarking becuase we
On 8/24/06, Bucky Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's benchmarks of RAID5x4 vs RAID10x4 on a Dell Perc5/I with 300 GB
10k RPM SAS drives. I know these are bonnie 1.9 instead of the older
version, but maybe it might still make for useful analysis of RAID5 vs.
RAID10.
-- RAID5x4
i dont
On 8/24/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-08-
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:03, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > > > On 8/22
Here's benchmarks of RAID5x4 vs RAID10x4 on a Dell Perc5/I with 300 GB
10k RPM SAS drives. I know these are bonnie 1.9 instead of the older
version, but maybe it might still make for useful analysis of RAID5 vs.
RAID10.
Also, unfortunately I don't have the exact numbers, but RAID10x6
performed re
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> > > it's not t
> it's worse than that. if you need to read something that is not in
> the o/s cache, all the disks except for one need to be sent to a
> physical location in order to get the data. Thats the basic rule with
> striping: it optimizes for sequential i/o in expense of random i/o.
> There are some op
I am looking at setting up two general-purpose database servers,
replicated with Slony. Each server I'm looking at has the following
specs:
Dell PowerEdge 2950
- 2 x Dual Core Intel(r) Xeon(r) 5130, 4MB Cache, 2.00GHz, 1333MHZ FSB
- 4GB RAM
- PERC 5/i, x6 Backplane, Integrated Controller Card (25
On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> it's not the parity, it's the seeking. Raid 5 gives you great
> sequential i
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> > Very interesting. I always hear that people avoid RAID 5 on database
> > servers, but I suppose it always depends. Is the parit
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 21:50 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:23:03PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >Also, do ext2 or UFS without soft updates run the risk of losing or
> >corrupting my data?
>
> I suggest you check the list archives; there's a lot of stuff about
> filesystems
Also, as Tom stated, defining your test cases is a good idea before you
start benchmarking. Our application has a load data phase, then a
query/active use phase. So, we benchmark both (data loads, and then
transactions) since they're quite different workloads, and there's
different ways to optimize
> Monitoring the processes using top reveals that the total amount of
> memory used slowly increases during the test. When reaching insert
> number 4, or somewhere around that, memory is exhausted, and the the
> systems begins to swap. Each of the postmaster processes seem to use a
> constant a
On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
Very interesting. I always hear that people avoid RAID 5 on database
servers, but I suppose it always depends. Is the parity calculation
something that may increase commit latency vs. a RAID 1
"Fredrik Israelsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Monitoring the processes using top reveals that the total amount of
> memory used slowly increases during the test. When reaching insert
> number 4, or somewhere around that, memory is exhausted, and the the
> systems begins to swap. Each of th
I am evaluating PostgreSQL as a candiate to cooperate with a java
application.
Performance test set up:
Only one table in the database schema.
The tables contains a bytea column plus some other columns.
The PostgreSQL server runs on Linux.
Test execution:
The java application connects throught TC
20 matches
Mail list logo
