Which scheduler is recommended for a box that is dedicated to running
postgres?
I've asked google and found no answers.
Is it the OS itself?
--
regards
Claus
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.
Shakespeare
Hi
Which scheduler is recommended for a box that is dedicated to running
postgres?
I've asked google and found no answers.
Is it the OS itself?
Yes, in linux. I've found that cfq or deadline is best, but I haven't
seen anyone try a benchmark
--
Adrian Moisey
System Administrator |
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Adrian Moisey wrote:
Hi
Which scheduler is recommended for a box that is dedicated to running
postgres?
I've asked google and found no answers.
Is it the OS itself?
Yes, in linux. I've found that cfq or deadline is best, but I haven't seen
anyone try a benchmark
Deadline works best for us. The new AS is getting better, but last we
tried there were issues with it.
- Luke
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adrian Moisey
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:01 PM
To:
* Hannes Dorbath:
I might completely misunderstand this feature. Shouldn't
synchronous_commit = off improve performance?
Indeed.
We've seen something similar in one test, but couldn't reproduce it in
a clean environment so far.
Maybe it's just my test box.. single SATA-II drive, XFS on top
On Jan 22, 2008 9:32 AM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just my test box.. single SATA-II drive, XFS on top of LVM.
Ours was ext3, no LVM or RAID.
Also with SATA? If your SATA disk is lying about effectively SYNCing
the data, I'm not that surprised you don't see any
* Guillaume Smet:
On Jan 22, 2008 9:32 AM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just my test box.. single SATA-II drive, XFS on top of LVM.
Ours was ext3, no LVM or RAID.
Also with SATA?
Yes, desktop-class SATA.
If your SATA disk is lying about effectively SYNCing the
Guillaume Smet wrote:
Also with SATA? If your SATA disk is lying about effectively SYNCing
the data, I'm not that surprised you don't see any improvement. Being
slower is a bit surprising though.
The disc is not lying, but LVM does not support write barriers, so the
result is the same. Indeed
Greg Smith wrote:
Try something more in the range of 4 clients/CPU and set the scale to
closer to twice that (so with a dual-core system you might do 8 clients
and a scale of 16). If you really want to simulate a large number of
clients, do that on another system and connect to the server
Hello,
I'm developing some routines that will use temporary tables and need
advice on how to not lose performance.
I will insert data in a temporary table and use this data to generate
new sets that will update or add to the same temporary table.
I have some questions that I'm concerned
Adam PAPAI wrote:
Hi pgsql-performance,
I've a problem with the select * on a small table.
See below:
x7=# SELECT count(idn) from megjelenesek;
count
---
162
(1 row)
Why does it take cca 18-20 sec to get the results?
Too many indexes?
You likely have a huge amount of dead rows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:44:33 -0200
Luiz K. Matsumura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:Hi,
If we run the commands vacumm full analyze and reindex table,
this can be considered as equivalent to making a dump / restore in
this
On Jan 22, 2008 1:32 PM, Luiz K. Matsumura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm developing some routines that will use temporary tables and need
advice on how to not lose performance.
I will insert data in a temporary table and use this data to generate
new sets that will update or add to
Hi -performance,
While testing 8.3, I found this query which is equally slow on 8.1 and
8.3 and seems to be really slow for a not so complex query. The stats
are as good as possible and the behaviour of PostgreSQL seems to be
logical considering the stats but I'm looking for a workaround to
speed
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the question is: is there any way to improve the results of the
original query, other than doing a first query in the application to
get the list of types and inject them in a second query (the one just
above)?
Well, if you're willing to cheat like
On Jan 23, 2008 2:43 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
regression=# create or replace function getu2(int) returns int[] as $$
select array(select unique2 from tenk1 where thousand = $1);
$$ language sql immutable;
CREATE FUNCTION
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where unique1 =
Hey folks --
For starters, I am fairly new to database tuning and I'm still learning
the ropes. I understand the concepts but I'm still learning the real
world impact of some of the configuration options for postgres.
We have an application that has been having some issues with performance
On Jan 22, 2008 10:11 PM, Joshua Fielek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey folks --
For starters, I am fairly new to database tuning and I'm still learning
the ropes. I understand the concepts but I'm still learning the real
world impact of some of the configuration options for postgres.
We have
18 matches
Mail list logo
