Hola Beto.
I have no idea where to look for that configuration or settings.
Yesterday I red about some drivers problems with SATA disk working togheter
with IDE devices with DMA.
Mi server server is a Pentium VI 3.3 with hyper threading (enabled in BIOS), HP
Proliant ML 110.
Then I entered to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hola Beto.
I have no idea where to look for that configuration or settings.
In postgreSQL, the main settings are in .../pgsql/data/postgresql.conf
Yesterday I red about some drivers problems with SATA disk working
togheter with IDE devices with DMA.
Mi server
About 5 months ago, I did an experiment serving tablespaces out of
AFS, another shared file system.
You can read my full post at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2007-04/msg00188.php
Thanks for the pointer! I had done a search on the archives, but
didn't find this one (strange,
(SORRY FOR THE REPOST, I DON'T SEE MY ORIGINAL QUESTION OR ANY ANSWERS HERE)
I am noticing that my queries are spending a lot of time in nested loops.
The table/index row estimates are not bad, but the nested loops can be off
by a factor of 50. In any case, they are always too high.
Are the
(SORRY FOR THE REPOST, I DON'T SEE MY ORIGINAL QUESTION OR ANY ANSWERS HERE)
My client publishes an edition of their DB from his production site to
his hosted web/db server. This is done by FTPing a backup of the DB to his
hosting provider.
Immediately after a publication (restore to web/db
My new server postgresql.conf is equal to the old one. I'm doubting this is a
hardware issue.
Googling with my hard HP Proliant ML 110 G3 I saw that IHC7 controller has some
problems, but looking and testing with hdparm it looks ok.
hdparm -tT /dev/sdaç
Timing cached reads: 1722 MB in 2.00
Anyway... One detail I don't understand --- why do you claim that
You can't take advantage of the shared file system because you can't
share tablespaces among clusters or servers ???
I say that because you can't set up two servers to point to the same
tablespace (i.e. you can't have server A
Hello all,
Old servers that housed 7.4 performed better than 8.1.4 version...are there
any MAJOR performance hits with this version???
I set the postgresql.conf setting to equal that of 7.4 and queries still run
SLOW on 8.1.4...
I have perform maintenance tonight on the 8.1.4 server - any
Thanks again, Peter, for expanding on these points.
Peter Koczan wrote:
Anyway... One detail I don't understand --- why do you claim that
You can't take advantage of the shared file system because you can't
share tablespaces among clusters or servers ???
I say that because you can't
smiley2211 wrote:
Hello all,
Old servers that housed 7.4 performed better than 8.1.4 version...are there
any MAJOR performance hits with this version???
Are you using the default UNICODE encoding for your databases??
This could potentially translate into a performance hit (considerable?
No, I didn't UPGRADE it but that's what I inherited :( ...not sure of the
code page stuff because I am not the one who did the upgrade...I'm not sure
I know ENOUGH about POSTGRESQL to mess around with the codepage...
Yes, I use vacuum analyze...
Yes, I used the postgresql.conf of 7.4 and tried
On 9/20/07, smiley2211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I didn't UPGRADE it but that's what I inherited :( ...not sure of the
code page stuff because I am not the one who did the upgrade...I'm not sure
I know ENOUGH about POSTGRESQL to mess around with the codepage...
Yes, I use vacuum
On 9/20/07, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
effort is going. I'm guessing you'll see a lot of id in there.
sorry, meant wa (wait)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm finding this rather interesting report from top on a Debian box...
Mem: 32945280k total, 32871832k used,73448k free, 247432k buffers
Swap: 1951888k total,42308k used, 1909580k free, 30294300k cached
So how is it that linux thinks that 30G
How do I know if there is BLOATING??? I just ran vacuum verbose;
Yes, autovacuum is on.
Thanks...Michelle
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Upgraded-from-7.4-to-8.1.4-QUERIES-NOW-SLOW%21%21%21-tf4489502.html#a12807959
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list
Sorry, I know this is probably more a linux question, but I'm guessing
that others have run into this...
I'm finding this rather interesting report from top on a Debian box...
Mem: 32945280k total, 32871832k used,73448k free, 247432k buffers
Swap: 1951888k total,42308k used,
On 9/20/07, smiley2211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do I know if there is BLOATING??? I just ran vacuum verbose;
Yes, autovacuum is on.
Post the last 4 or 5 lines from vacuum verbose.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your
Here are the requested lines...
There were 0 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: free space map contains 786 pages in 297 relations
DETAIL: A total of 5408 page slots are in use (including overhead).
5408 page slots are required to
18 matches
Mail list logo
