On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Aaron Turner wrote:
>>
>> Are newer PG versions more memory efficient?
>>
>
> Moving from PostgreSQL 8.1 to 8.3 or later should make everything you do
> happen 2X to 3X faster, before even taking into account
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Aaron Turner (synfina...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Basically, each connection is taking about 100MB resident
>
> Errr.. Given that your shared buffers are around 100M, I think you're
> confusing what you see in top wi
of PG pointing at the same files, one
read-only and one read-write with different memory profiles, so I
assume my only real option is throw more RAM at it. I don't have $$$
for another array/server for a master/slave right now. Or perhaps
tweaking my .conf file? Are newer PG versions
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Turner wrote:
>> DELETE FROM muapp.pcap_store AS x
>> USING muapp.pcap_store AS a
>> LEFT JOIN muapp.pcap_store_log b ON a.pcap_storeid =
>> b.pcap_s
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Turner wrote:
>> DELETE FROM muapp.pcap_store AS x
>> USING muapp.pcap_store AS a
>> LEFT JOIN muapp.pcap_store_log b ON a.pcap_storeid =
>> b.pcap_s
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Aaron Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Alvaro
>> Herrera wrote:
>>> Aaron Turner escribió:
>>>> I'm trying to figure out how to optimize th
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Alvaro
Herrera wrote:
> Aaron Turner escribió:
>> I'm trying to figure out how to optimize this query (yes, I ran
>> vacuum/analyze):
>>
>> musecurity=# explain DELETE FROM muapp.pcap_store WHERE pcap_storeid
>
E CASCADE
As you see, the sequence scan on pcap_store is killing me, even though
there appears to be a perfectly good index. Is there a better way
construct this query?
Thanks,
Aaron
--
Aaron Turner
http://synfin.net/
http://tcpreplay.synfin.net/ - Pcap editing and replay tools for Unix & Win
a problem, but if the sender is stalling because it has a
small window, waiting for an ack to be received that could cause a
large slow down.
Do the ack's include any data? If so it's indicative of the PG
networking protocol overhead- probably not much you can do about that.
Without looking
ving your DB box 5 hops away is going to add a lot of latency
and any packet loss is going to kill TCP throughput- especially if you
increase window sizes. I'd recommend something like "mtr" to map the
network traffic (make sure you run it both ways in case you have an
asymmetric routing
most of the settings in the postgresql.conf actually
dropped performance significantly. Looks like I'm starving the disk
cache.
4) I'm going to assume going to a bytea helped some (width is 54 vs
66) but nothing really measurable
Thanks everyone for your help!
--
Aaron Turner
ht
On 2/12/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well before I go about re-architecting things, it would be good to
> > have a strong understanding of just what is going on. Obviously, the
> > unique index on the char
the transaction due to drop index.
Yep. In my case it's not a huge problem right now, but I know it will
become a serious one sooner or later.
Thanks a lot Marc. Lots of useful info.
--
Aaron Turner
http://synfin.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
On 2/11/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:24:39AM -0800, Aaron Turner wrote:
> > On 2/10/06, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> > > Aaron Turner wrote:
> >
> > Basically, I need some way to optimize PG so that I don
On 2/10/06, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Aaron Turner wrote:
> > So I'm trying to figure out how to optimize my PG install (8.0.3) to
> > get better performance without dropping one of my indexes.
>
> What about something like this:
>
> begin;
> drop s
On 2/10/06, hubert depesz lubaczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Aaron Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'm trying to figure out how to optimize my PG install (8.0.3) to
> > get better performance without dropping one of my indexes.
> > B
0rpm) for WAL
other then throwing more spindles at the problem, any suggestions?
Thanks,
Aaron
--
Aaron Turner
http://synfin.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
17 matches
Mail list logo
