Josh,
On 9/14/06 8:47 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've obtained 1,950 MB/s using Linux software RAID on SATA drives.
>
> With what? :)
Sun X4500 (aka Thumper) running stock RedHat 4.3 (actually CentOS 4.3) with
XFS and the linux md driver without lvm. Here is a summary
Benjamin Minshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the advantages or disadvantages of using arrays in this
> situation? The = ANY array method makes plpgsql development cleaner,
> but seems to really lack performance in certain cases.
In existing releases, the form with IN (list-of-scalar
Greetings:
I'm running 8.1.4, and have noticed major differences in execution time
for plpgsql functions running queries that differ only in use of an
array such as:
slower_function( vals integer[] )
[query] WHERE id = ANY vals;
faster_function( vals integer[] )
vals_text :
>When we first started working with Solaris ZFS, we were getting about
>400-600 MB/s, and after working with the Solaris Engineering team we
now >get
>rates approaching 2GB/s. The updates needed to Solaris are part of the
>Solaris 10 U3 available in October (and already in Solaris Express, aka
>So
On 15-9-2006 17:53 Tom Lane wrote:
If that WHERE logic is actually what you need, then getting this query
to run quickly seems pretty hopeless. The database must form the full
outer join result: it cannot discard any listing0_ rows, even if they
have lastupdate outside the given range, because t
Joost Kraaijeveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you mean with "increasing my statistics target" changing the value of
> "default_statistics_target = 10" to a bigger number? If so, changing it
> to 900 did not make any difference (PostgreSQL restarted, vacuumed
> analysed etc).
Hm, did the "353"
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> but it seems there are only 7. Try increasing your statistics target
> and re-analyzing.
Do you mean with "increasing my statistics target" changing the value of
"default_statistics_target = 10" to a bigger number? If so, changing it
to 900 did
Pallav Kalva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select listing0_.listingid as col_0_0_,
> getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) as col_1_0_
> from listing.listing listing0_
> left outer join listing.address listingadd1_
> on listing0_.fkbestaddressid=listingadd1_.addressid
> le
Greg, Josh,
Something I found out while doing this - lvm (and lvm2) slows the block
stream down dramatically. At first I was using it for convenience sake to
implement partitions on top of the md devices, but I found I was stuck at
about 700 MB/s. Removing lvm2 from the picture allowed me to get
Hi,
Is there anyway we can optimize this sql ? it is doing full table
scan on listing and address table . Postgres version 8.0.2
Thanks!
Pallav.
explain analyze
select listing0_.listingid as col_0_0_,
getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) as col_1_0_
from listing.li
"Joost Kraaijeveld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why the difference and can I influence the result so that the first
> query plan (which is the fastest) is actually used in both cases (I
> would expect that the limit would be done after the sort?)?
It likes the second plan because 6694025.41/353
That's an all PCI-X box which makes sense. There are 6 SATA controllers
in that little beastie also. You can always count on Sun to provide
over engineered boxes.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: Friday
On 9/15/06, Markus Schaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For xeons, there were rumours about "context switch storms" which kill
performance.
It's not that much a problem in 8.1. There are a few corner cases when
you still have the problem but on a regular load you don't have it
anymore (validated
Hi, Francisco,
Francisco Reyes wrote:
> I am looking to either improve the time of the vacuum or decrease it's
> impact on the loads.
> Are the variables:
> #vacuum_cost_delay = 0 # 0-1000 milliseconds
> #vacuum_cost_page_hit = 1 # 0-1 credits
> #vacuum_cost_pag
Hi, Jérôme,
Jérôme BENOIS wrote:
> max_connections = 512
Do you really have that much concurrent connections? Then you should
think about getting a larger machine, probably.
You will definitely want to play with commit_delay and commit_siblings
settings in that case, especially if you have writ
Hi,
I have two table: customers and salesorders. salesorders have a foreign
key to the customer
If I run this query:
SELECT
salesOrders.objectid,
salesOrders.ordernumber,
salesOrders.orderdate,
customers.objectid,
customers.customernumber,
customers.lastname
FROM prototype.salesorders
IN
16 matches
Mail list logo
