Re: [PERFORM] pg_trgm performance

2007-02-24 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:04:36AM +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: Could you post EXPLAIN ANALYZE for both queries (after 2 or 3 runs)? GIST version, short: amarok=# explain analyze select count(*) from tags where title % 'foo'; QUERY PLAN

Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem

2007-02-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Geoffrey wrote: Guillaume Smet wrote: On 2/23/07, Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea to upgrade only to 8 IMHO.

[PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Carlos Moreno
Say that I have a dual-core processor (AMD64), with, say, 2GB of memory to run PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on Fedora Core X. I have the option to put two hard disks (SATA2, most likely); I'm wondering what would be the optimal configuration from the point of view of performance. I do have the option

Re: [PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Tom Lane
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is: does PostgreSQL have separate, independent areas that require storage such that performance would be noticeably boosted if the multiple storage operations could be done simultaneously? The standard advice in this area is to put pg_xlog

Re: [PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Alexander Staubo
On Feb 25, 2007, at 04:39 , Carlos Moreno wrote: I do have the option to configure it in RAID-0, but I'm sort of reluctant; I think there's the possibility that having two filesystems that can be accessed truly simultaneously can be more beneficial. The question is: does PostgreSQL have