On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, nobody nowhere wrote:
> Centos 5.X kernel 2.6.18-274
> pgsql-9.1 from pgdg-91-centos.repo
> relatively small database 3.2Gb
> Lot of insert, update, delete.
>
> I see non balanced _User_ usage on 14 CPU, exclusively assigned to the
> hardware raid controller.
> Wha
On 12/29/2012 10:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 29 December 2012 20:57, Stefan Andreatta wrote:
...
The general advice here is:
1) Increase default_statistics_target for the column.
I tried that, but to get good estimates under these circumstances, I
need to set the statistics_target so
On 01/03/2013 11:54 PM, Alex Vinnik wrote:
Don't understand why PG doesn't use views_visit_id_index in that query
but rather scans whole table. One explanation I have found that when
resulting dataset constitutes ~15% of total number of rows in the table
then seq scan is used. In this case result
Centos 5.X kernel 2.6.18-274
pgsql-9.1 from pgdg-91-centos.repo
relatively small database 3.2Gb
Lot of insert, update, delete.
I see non balanced _User_ usage on 14 CPU, exclusively assigned to the hardware
raid controller.
What I'm doing wrong, and is it possible somehow to fix?
Thanks in advan
On 01/03/2013 10:54 PM, Alex Vinnik wrote:
I have implemented my first app using PG DB and thought for a minute(may be
two) that I know something about PG but below problem totally destroyed my
confidence :). Please help me to restore it.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
--
J
Hi everybody,
I have implemented my first app using PG DB and thought for a minute(may be
two) that I know something about PG but below problem totally destroyed my
confidence :). Please help me to restore it.
Here is simple join query. It runs just fine on MS SQL 2008 and uses
all available inde
-Original Message-
From: Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:hlinnakan...@vmware.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 18:02
To: Daniel Westermann
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
On 03.01.2013 15:30, Daniel Westermann w
On 03.01.2013 15:30, Daniel Westermann wrote:
What additionally makes me wonder is, that the same table in oracle is taking
much less space than in postgresql:
SQL> select sum(bytes) from dba_extents where segment_name = 'TEST1';
SUM(BYTES)
--
1610612736
select pg_relation_size('mgmt
Hi Listers,
we migrated an oracle datawarehouse to postgresql 9.1 ( ppas 9.1.7.12 ) and are
facing massive issues with response times in postgres when compared to the
oracle system. Both database run on the same hardware and storage ( rhel5.8
64bit ).
Oracle memory parameters are:
SGA=1gb
PGA=