On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Benjamin Minshall
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for your general thoughts on CPU brand and HP disk controllers
> for a PostgreSQL server running Linux. The workload is all over the place
> sometimes OLTP, sometimes huge/long report transactions, sometimes ton
Hello Matthew, hello Tom,
thanks for your reply.
...and yes, the hint with the newly created index solved the problem.
kind regards...GERD...
Tom Lane wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Gerd_K=F6nig?= writes:
>> I'm quite sure that the difference from 94ms (explain of the delete
>> statement)
>> to 24s (
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:46 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
> The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
> on speed is the vital factor.
> Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
Y
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
as noted by others *B
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Benjamin Minshall wrote:
I'm basically looking at something in the ProLiant DL380 series which
boils down to Intel Xeon 5500 or AMD Opteron 2600. Are there any
notable performance concerns regarding Postgres on either of these cpus?
The Xeon 5500 series are very impressiv
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone. The
postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Generally the fastest Linux distribution is whichever one is built using
the most
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
For comparison, with Red Hat, you will need to upgrade to a whole new
distribution whenever you want updated software, which is a much bigger
undertaking.
This is somewhat true for larger packages, but it's not the case for
PostgreSQL. You certain
Eric thanks. And its not 200 differnet server , its only single pg8.3
handling 200+ dbs.
Arvind S
"Many of lifes failure are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up."
-Thomas Edison
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric
wrote:
> >-Original
Hello all,
I'm looking for your general thoughts on CPU brand and HP disk controllers for
a PostgreSQL server running Linux. The workload is all over the place
sometimes OLTP, sometimes huge/long report transactions, sometimes tons of
inserts and warehouse so I'm looking for overall good perf
Jean-David Beyer writes:
> The theory with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution is that you run
> with what comes with it. All the stuff that comes with it is guaranteed to
> work together. Red Hat do not add features, change any interfaces, etc. Then
> they support it for 7 years. I.e., if i
Greg Smith writes:
> 2) Test if an upgrade to PG 8.4 improves your situation. There is some
> new code in that version (labeled in the release notes as "Track
> transaction snapshots more carefully") that has improved problems in this
> area quite a bit for me. There's a bit more detail about
>-Original Message-
>From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
>> The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+.
>Performance
>> on speed is the vit
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Gerd_K=F6nig?= writes:
> I'm quite sure that the difference from 94ms (explain of the delete statement)
> to 24s (duration in the trigger) is not only due to some overhead in trigger
> handling...but I've no idea what else we can check..?!?
There are two possible explanations for t
Karl Wright wrote:
> when database maintenance takes place (which consists of a VACUUM
> FULL operation, and some table REINDEX operations)
Besides providing the information requested by Robert, can you explain
why you chose to use VACUUM FULL? The FULL option is only really
useful in a small
> Hi everyone,
> What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
> The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
> on speed is the vital factor.
> Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
As others mention FreeBSD is somewhat different fr
Thanks Jean,
So from the discussion is it true that performance will be same across
all newly upgraded linux is it?
Thanks,
Arvind S
*
"Many of lifes failure are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up."
-Thomas Edison
*
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Jea
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Gerd König wrote:
Trigger NotReceivedTransport_Delete: time=24658.394 calls=1
Yeah, it's pretty obvious this is the problem.
explain analyze DELETE FROM "NotReceivedTransport" WHERE
"SId" = 11479 AND "CId" = 11479 AND
"ShipperTransportNumber" = '100432';
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
For starters, FreeBSD isn't Linux at all. Secondly, the other three
options you have listed are all Red Hat versions - not much variety there.
The main difference between those is that Fedora tries to be the latest and
greatest. This implies that you must reinstall or u
For example i mentioned few linux name only, if any one linux other then
this also u can prescribe. Our servers needs to be more stable one, as Jean
told we cant upgrade our OS often. For the Postgres8.3 can u tell me the
best one. Factor is purely performance and i/o since our storage server
sepra
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
I have a transaction running at the database for around 20 hours .. still
isn't done. But during the last hours it has come to the point where it
really hurts performance of "other queries".
Open transactions grab an internal resource named a snapsho
S Arvind wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres
alone. The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+.
Performance on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
-Arvind S
I do not know the others, a
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone. The
postgres
must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance on speed is the
vital
factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
For starters, FreeBSD isn't Linu
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
Er, wait... if you set the 'COST' parameter for the backing function,
does that work?
Ah, right. I was looking at CREATE OPERATOR, not CREATE FUNCTION.
Thanks,
Matthew
--
Bashir: The point is, if you lie all the time, nobody will believe you, even
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
-Arvind S
In some docs i read that shared buffer must be increased based on the
maximum dataset size. For my scenario the dataset size is relative small
less then a Gb, but database# handled by a server is nearly 200db per
server and average connection# to server will be >500 (approx 5/per each
DB). So for
Hello,
we're currently facing long running insert statements with durations ~15sec (far
too long...) and I've no idea what's the reason for this issue.
An "explain analyze" of the insert statement tells me:
SNIP #
begin;
BEGIN
t
26 matches
Mail list logo
