-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
smiley2211 wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> You are CORRECT...my queries were going to /var/log/messages...had to get
> the Linux Admin to grant me READ access to the file...
You may want to actually get that to stop. Syslog is a notorious
performance bottleneck f
"Relyea, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT "PrintSamples"."MachineID", "PrintSamples"."PrintCopyID",
> "tblColors"."ColorID", avg("ParameterValues"."ParameterValue") AS
> "Mottle_NMF"
>FROM "AnalysisModules"
>JOIN ("tblColors"
>JOIN ("tblTPNamesAndColors"
>JOIN "PrintSample
Jeff,
You are CORRECT...my queries were going to /var/log/messages...had to get
the Linux Admin to grant me READ access to the file...
Thanks for your reply.
Michelle.
Jeff Frost wrote:
>
> Michelle,
>
> What platform are you on? If you're on linux, than logging to syslog will
> likely sho
Michelle,
What platform are you on? If you're on linux, than logging to syslog will
likely show up in the /var/log/messages file.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, smiley2211 wrote:
Hello all,
I have ENABLED this 'log_min_duration_statement = 100" but I can't figure
out WHERE it's writing the commands
I know we bough the 4 proc opteron unit with the sas jbod from dell and it
has been extremely excellent in terms of performance.
Was like 3 times faster the our old dell 4 proc which had xeon processors.
The newer one has had a few issues (I am running redhat as4 since dell
supports it. I have ha
On 8/10/07, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
>
> > PowerEdge 1950 paired with a PowerVault MD1000
> > 2 x Quad Core Xeon E5310
> > 16 GB 667MHz RAM (4 x 4GB leaving room to expand if we need to)
> > PERC 5/E Raid Adapter
> > 2 x 146 GB SAS in Rai
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> These query times are the "fully cached" times for both, from doing a
> previous run of the same query. (The first one took 193.772 ms on its first
> run; I don't have a good "uncached" timing for the second one at this point.)
>
> It seems like the first query could mo
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 13:54 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> I tried with CLOG 24 also and I got linear performance upto 1250 users
> after which it started to tank. 32 got us to 1350 users before some
> other bottleneck overtook it.
Jignesh,
Thanks for testing that.
It's not very clear to eve
On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
PowerEdge 1950 paired with a PowerVault MD1000
2 x Quad Core Xeon E5310
16 GB 667MHz RAM (4 x 4GB leaving room to expand if we need to)
PERC 5/E Raid Adapter
2 x 146 GB SAS in Raid 1 for OS + logs.
A bunch of disks in the MD1000 configured in Raid 10 f
These query times are the "fully cached" times for both, from doing a previous
run of the same query. (The first one took 193.772 ms on its first run; I
don't have a good "uncached" timing for the second one at this point.)
It seems like the first query could move the searchName filter to the
Oops. Realized I posted the wrong SQL and EXPLAIN ANALYZE results.
Also forgot to mention that my "server" has 1.5 GB memory.
SELECT "PrintSamples"."MachineID", "PrintSamples"."PrintCopyID",
"tblColors"."ColorID", avg("ParameterValues"."ParameterValue") AS
"Mottle_NMF"
FROM "AnalysisModules"
I tried with CLOG 24 also and I got linear performance upto 1250 users
after which it started to tank. 32 got us to 1350 users before some
other bottleneck overtook it.
Based on what Tom said earlier, it might then make sense to make it a
tunable with the default of 8 but something one can c
Hello all,
I have ENABLED this 'log_min_duration_statement = 100" but I can't figure
out WHERE it's writing the commands to ...I have it set to 'syslogs' but
this file is 0 bytes :confused:
Should I set other parameters in my postgresql.conf file???
Thanks...Michelle
Bryan Murphy-3 wrote:
>
On 8/9/07, Arjen van der Meijden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
> > expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays but installing
> > controllers on a production server is scary.
>
> For con
runic wrote:
Hello Group,
I'm new in PostgreSQL Business, therefore please forgive me a "newbie"
Question. I have a table with ca. 1.250.000 Records. When I execute
a "select count (*) from table" (with pgAdmin III) it takes about 40
secs.
I think that takes much to long. Can you please give m
On 8/8/07, runic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Group,
>
> I'm new in PostgreSQL Business, therefore please forgive me a "newbie"
> Question. I have a table with ca. 1.250.000 Records. When I execute
> a "select count (*) from table" (with pgAdmin III) it takes about 40
> secs.
> I think that
On 8/10/07, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:50:10PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Raid 10 is usually better for databases but in my experience it's a
> > roll of the dice. If you factor cost into the matrix a SAS raid 05
> > might outperform a SATA raid 10 becau
On 8/10/07, Arjen van der Meijden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
> > expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays but installing
> > controllers on a production server is scary.
>
> For co
18 matches
Mail list logo
