Good catch Jeff.
as for which version. We always recommend the latest version. 42.1.4
Dave Cramer
da...@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com
On 29 September 2017 at 06:44, Subramaniam C <subramaniam31...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes you are right the timestamp which the application was
won't help this situation but there's still no
reason not to upgrade.
Dave Cramer
da...@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com
On 28 September 2017 at 12:32, Subramaniam C <subramaniam31...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The JDBC version is 9.4-1201-jdbc41.
>
> Query :-
>
> select cou
What version of the driver are you using?
The driver does not automatically use a cursor, but it does use prepared
statements which can be slower.
Can you provide the query and the jdbc query ?
Dave Cramer
da...@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com
On 28 September 2017 at 05:59
Nobody has asked what kind of machine this is ???
Hard disks, memory, etc.
What are your relevant settings in postgresql.conf ? Shared buffers,
checkpoints, etc.
Also how big are the inserts ? What else is this machine doing ? Is it bare
hardware, or a VM ?
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ
kernel.shmmni = 4096
To reduce the request size [FAILently 2232950784 bytes), reduce
PostgreSQL's shared memory usage,
Dave Cramer
bytes), reduce
PostgreSQL's shared memory usage, perhaps by reducing shared_buffers or
max_connections.
ipcs -m
-- Shared Memory Segments
keyshmid owner perms bytes nattch status
Dave Cramer
On 18 June 2014 15:15, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote
Problem solved... a runaway process (puppet) had consumed all available
real memory
Dave Cramer
On 18 June 2014 15:24, Dave Cramer davecra...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-18 13:37:15 EDT FATAL: could not map anonymous shared memory:
Cannot allocate memory
2014-06-18 13:37:15 EDT HINT
about fragmentation of the WAL logs. I am
looking at testing with and without the WAL logs on ZFS. Any other specific
concerns ?
Dave Cramer
credativ ltd (Canada)
78 Zina St
Orangeville, ON
Canada. L9W 1E8
Office: +1 (905) 766-4091
Mobile: +1 (519) 939-0336
: 2kB
- Seq Scan on note_set_sources (cost=0.00..1.16 rows=16
width=794) (actual time=0.012..0.014 rows=16 loops=1)
Total runtime: 829.657 ms
(25 rows)
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
Tom,
Will try to get one ASAP.
Dave
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Cramer p...@fastcrypt.com writes:
This query is a couple orders of magnitude slower the first result is
9.2.1
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Eileen hey_h...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
I have written some Java code which builds a postgresql function. That
function calls approximately 6 INSERT statements with a RETURNING clause. I
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
On 15/04/10 04:49, Dave Crooke wrote:
Hi foilks
I am using PG 8.3 from Java. I am considering a performance tweak which
will involve holding about 150 java.sql.PreparedStatment objects open
against a single
You should also keep in mind that JDBC uses prepared statements, so you have
to explain analyze accordingly.
Dave
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
G B g.b.co...@gmail.com writes:
How can explain-analyze return significantly much faster than other
means?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Rees dree...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Dave Cramer wrote:
So far using dd I am seeing around 264MB/s on ext3, 335MB/s on ext2
write
speed. So the question becomes what is the best
So far using dd I am seeing around 264MB/s on ext3, 335MB/s on ext2 write
speed. So the question becomes what is the best filesystem for this drive?
Anyone want me to run anything on it ?
Dave
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Guillaume Smet guillaume.s...@gmail.com writes:
Unnamed prepared statements are planned after binding the values,
starting with 8.3, or more precisely starting with 8.3.2 as early 8.3
versions were partially broken on this
Any idea why it wouldn't choose the right index ?
This is 8.3
# \d battles
Table public.battles
Column|Type |
Modifiers
-+-
I have a query which is
prepare s_18 as select uid from user_profile where name like
$1::varchar and isactive=$2 order by name asc limit 250;
explain analyze execute s_18 ('atxchery%','t');
QUERY
PLAN
On 17-Mar-08, at 2:50 PM, Justin wrote:
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why
use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
Criag
Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
in ext3 file system
On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was
any real big difference in performance as some people have noted
here is the test results
please note the WAL files
On 11-Mar-08, at 8:28 AM, petchimuthu lingam wrote:
I have one table with 30 fields, i have more then 60 million
records, if i use more no of indexes will it affect the insertion
performance? and select performance?
Yes, and yes, but without more information about what you are trying
to
On 6-Mar-08, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Denne wrote:
The strange thing of course is that the data is exactly the same for
both runs, the tables have not been changed between runs, and I did
them right after another. Even more strange is that the seq scan is
faster than the index scan.
It is not
Josh,
On 6-Mar-08, at 12:26 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Dave,
Below I have two almost identical queries. Strangely enough the one
that uses the index is slower ???
My first guess would be that records are highly correlated by DOB
and not at
all by name. However, it would help if you
On 6-Mar-08, at 1:43 AM, sathiya psql wrote:
is there any way to explicitly force the postgres to use index scan
If you want to count all the rows in the table there is only one way
to do it (without keeping track yourself with a trigger ); a seq scan.
An index will not help you.
The
Hi,
On 6-Mar-08, at 6:58 AM, sathiya psql wrote:
The only thing that is going to help you is really fast disks, and
more memory, and you should consider moving to 8.3 for all the other
performance benefits.
Is 8.3 is a stable version or what is the latest stable version of
postgres ??
Yes
On 6-Mar-08, at 5:10 PM, Stephen Denne wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
I have two almost identical queries. Strangely enough the one
that uses the index is slower ???
The index scan is being used so that it can retrieve the rows in the
name order.
It expects that if it was to retrieve every
Hi,
I've run it on xen. works OK. Course this is all predicated upon your
expectations. If you expect it to be as fast as a dedicated machine,
you will be dissapointed.
Dave
On 5-Mar-08, at 3:54 AM, Moritz Onken wrote:
We have very good experiences with openVZ as virtualizer.
Since it's
Below I have two almost identical queries. Strangely enough the one
that uses the index is slower ???
explain analyze select uid from user_profile where
lower(firstname)='angie' and extract(year from age('2008-02-26
02:50:31.382', dob)) = 18 and extract(year from age('2008-02-26
On 21-Feb-08, at 12:13 AM, bh yuan wrote:
Hi
I am using Postgres8.3 on 8G memory , Xeon X5355 Quad Core x 2
processer RH5 machine with 10G data. (with some table which have
about 2,000,000~ 5,000,000 rows )
I have two quesion.
1. how to set the shared_buffers and other postgresql.conf
On 21-Feb-08, at 6:16 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other parameter you might want to look at is
effective_cache_size -
increasing it will encourage index use. On a machine with 16GB the
default is probably too small
On 19-Feb-08, at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:03:58 -0500
Douglas J Hunley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I spent a whopping seven hours restoring a database late Fri nite for
a client. We stopped the application, ran pg_dump
shared buffers is *way* too small as is effective cache
set them to 2G/6G respectively.
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
On 19-Feb-08, at 2:35 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:28:54 Dave Cramer wrote:
shared buffers is *way* too small as is effective cache
set them to 2G/6G respectively.
Dave
pardon my ignorance, but is this in the context of a restore only?
or 'in
general
On 17-Feb-08, at 10:18 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
Mohamed Ali JBELI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi members
I am looking for an example of a web application (WAR) which
executea a
Postgres actions. This aims to test the performance of Postgres in
Web mode.
I shall be grateful if someone gives
On 13-Feb-08, at 5:02 AM, Tore Halset wrote:
Hello.
I think I started that discussion. We ended up buying a Dell 2900
with PERC 6/i and 10 * 145GB SAS 3,5 15KRpm discs. 6 of the SAS
discs are in a raid 10 for the database, 2 in a mirror for the wal
and the last 2 in a mirror for the OS.
In order to get like queries to use an index with database initialized
with a UTF-8 character set I added a unique index to a table with a
varchar_pattern_ops
This table already had a unique constraint on the column so I dropped
the unique constraint.
I can't give exact measurements
On 12-Nov-07, at 9:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
In order to get like queries to use an index with database
initialized with
a UTF-8 character set I added a unique index to a table with a
varchar_pattern_ops
This table already had a unique constraint on the column so I
On 12-Nov-07, at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, AFAIK the index with varchar_pattern_ops is used for LIKE
queries,
whereas the other one is going to be used for = queries. So you
need to
keep both indexes.
Given the current definition of text
I have a database that we want to keep track of counts of rows.
We have triggers on the rows which increment, and decrement a count
table. In order to speed up deleting many rows we have added the following
if user != 'mocospace_cleanup'
then
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 07:08:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 23063 waits for ExclusiveLock on tuple (20502,48) of
relation 48999028 of database 14510214; blocked by process 23110.
Process 23110 waits for ShareLock
On 13-Aug-07, at 9:50 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree. They are using LSI firmware now (and so is
everyone else). The servers are well built (highly subjective, I
admit) and configurable. I have had some bad experiences
Assuming we have 24 73G drives is it better to make one big metalun
and carve it up and let the SAN manage the where everything is, or is
it better to specify which spindles are where.
Currently we would require 3 separate disk arrays.
one for the main database, second one for WAL logs,
On 11-Jul-07, at 10:05 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming we have 24 73G drives is it better to make one big
metalun and carve
it up and let the SAN manage the where everything is, or is it
better to
specify which spindles are where.
This is quite
On 11-Jul-07, at 2:35 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Jim Nasby wrote:
I suppose an entirely in-memory database might be able to swamp a
2 drive WAL as well.
You can really generate a whole lot of WAL volume on an EMC SAN if
you're doing UPDATEs fast enough on data that is
Hi Andrew
On 11-Jun-07, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
Are you quite sure that PostgreSQL's management
Actually this one is an opteron, so it looks like it's all good.
Dave
On 8-Jun-07, at 3:41 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
I had to look that up, web site says it is a 4-processor, dual-core
(so 8 cores) Intel Xeon system. It also says
On 10-Jun-07, at 11:11 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
Providing to what? PostgreSQL? The OS? My bet is that you'll run
into issues with how
Hi Andrew
On 11-Jun-07, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
Are you quite sure that PostgreSQL's management
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
On 8-Jun-07, at 12:46 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
What CPU and OS are you considering?
--
Guy Rouillier
On 8-Jun-07, at 2:10 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
He means redhat ES/AS 4 I assume.
Yes AS4
J
Does anyone have any experience running pg on multiple IBM 3950's set
up as a single machine ?
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since PITR has to enable archiving does this not increase the amount
of disk I/O required ?
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Heikki,
Don't the archived logs have to be copied as well as the regular WAL
logs get recycled ?
Dave
On 28-May-07, at 12:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Since PITR has to enable archiving does this not increase the
amount of disk I/O required ?
There's
* set reasonable statement timeout
* backup with pitr. pg_dump is a headache on extremely busy servers.
Where do you put your pitr wal logs so that they don't take up extra
I/O ?
* get good i/o system for your box. start with 6 disk raid 10 and go
from there.
* spend some time reading
On 2-May-07, at 11:24 AM, Parks, Aaron B. wrote:
My pg 8.1 install on an AMD-64 box (4 processors) with 9 gigs of
ram running RHEL4 is acting kind of odd and I thought I would see
if anybody has any hints.
I have Java program using postgresql-8.1-409.jdbc3.jar to connect
over the
On 25-Apr-07, at 4:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Paweł Gruszczyński wrote:
To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25,
50, 75 users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average.
Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are
very simillar.
Hi Csaba,
I have a similar problem.
In an attempt to avoid the overhead of select count(*) from mailbox
where uid = somuid I've implemented triggers on insert and delete.
So there is a
user table which refers to to an inbox table,
so when people insert into the inbox there is an RI
On 5-Apr-07, at 3:33 PM, John Allgood wrote:
The hard thing about running multiple postmasters is that you have
to tune
each one separate. Most of the databases I have limited the max-
connections
to 30-50 depending on the database. What would reasonable values for
effective_cache_size and
] On Behalf Of Dave
Cramer
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:01 PM
To: John Allgood
Cc: 'Jeff Frost'; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server
On 5-Apr-07, at 3:33 PM, John Allgood wrote:
The hard thing about running multiple postmasters is that you
On 4-Apr-07, at 2:01 AM, Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
The next question then is whether anything in your postgres
configuration
is preventing it getting useful performance from the OS. What
settings
have you changed in postgresql.conf?
The only options not commented out are the
I may have missed this but have you tuned your postgresql
configuration ?
8.2 tuning guidelines are significantly different than 7.3
Dave
On 1-Apr-07, at 1:51 PM, Xiaoning Ding wrote:
I repeated the test again. It took 0.92 second under 8.2.3.
I checked system load using top and ps. There
I also think there have been changes in pgbench itself.
Make sure you run the same pgbench on both servers.
Dave
On 24-Mar-07, at 6:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
amrit angsusingh wrote:
I try to change my database server from the older one ie. 2Cpu
Xeon 2.4 32
bit 4Gb SDram Hdd SCSI RAID
On 20-Mar-07, at 9:23 AM, Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
Hello all,
I sent a similar post to a FreeBSD group, but thought I'd might try
here too.
I am completing a box for PostgreSQL server on FreeBSD. Selecting a
RAID controller I decided to go with 3ware SE9650-16, following
good opinions
On 20-Mar-07, at 1:53 PM, Benjamin Arai wrote:
This is a little biased but I would stay away from areca only
because they have fans on the card. At some point down the line
that card is going to die. When it does there is really no telling
what it will do to your data. I personally use
On 26-Feb-07, at 11:12 AM, Gene wrote:
hi!
I've been having some serious performance issues with
postgresql8.2/hibernate/jdbc due to postgres reusing bad cached query
plans. It doesn't look at the parameter values and therefore does not
use any partial indexes.
After trying to set
On 26-Jan-07, at 6:28 AM, John Parnefjord wrote:
Hi!
I'm planning to move from mysql to postgresql as I believe the latter
performs better when it comes to complex queries. The mysql database
that I'm running is about 150 GB in size, with 300 million rows in the
largest table. We do quite a
On 17-Jan-07, at 9:37 AM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
I still keep wondering if this table is bloated with dead tuples.
Even
if you vacuum often if there's a connection with an idle transaction,
the tuples can't be reclaimed and the table would continue to grow.
I used to vacuum once an hour,
On 17-Jan-07, at 3:41 PM, Steve wrote:
Hey there;
I've been lurking on this list awhile, and I've been working with
postgres for a number of years so I'm not exactly new to this. But
I'm still having trouble getting a good balance of settings and I'd
like to see what other people
On 14-Jan-07, at 7:31 AM, Rolf Østvik (HA/EXA) wrote:
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1234567890
00112233445566
77
I have been trying to change a many parameters on server versions
7.4.15,
On 14-Jan-07, at 10:34 AM, Rolf Østvik (HA/EXA) wrote:
Computer:
Dell PowerEdge 2950
openSUSE Linux 10.1
Intel(R) Xeon 3.00GHz
4GB memory
xfs filesystem on SAS disks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
On 13-Jan-07, at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jignesh Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The appserver is basically using bunch of prepared statements that
the
server should be executing directly without doing the parsing again.
Better have another look at that theory, because you're clearly
On 12-Jan-07, at 7:31 PM, Mark Dobbrow wrote:
Hello -
I have a fairly large table (3 million records), and am fetching
10,000 non-contigous records doing a simple select on an indexed
column ie
select grades from large_table where teacher_id = X
This is a test database, so the number
On 9-Jan-07, at 7:50 AM, Nörder-Tuitje, Marcus wrote:
Forget abount IN. Its horribly slow.
I think that statement above was historically correct, but is now
incorrect. IN has been optimized quite significantly since 7.4
Dave
try :
select w.appid,
w.rate,
On 6-Jan-07, at 11:32 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
The box has 3 GB of memory. I would think that BigDBMS would be
hurt by this more than PG. Here are the settings I've modified
in postgresql.conf:
As I said you need to set shared_buffers to at least 750MB
On 5-Jan-07, at 9:51 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
I've got back access to my test system. I ran another test run
with the same input data set. This time I put pg_xlog on a
different RAID volume (the unused one that I suspect is a software
RAID), and I turned fsync=off in postgresql.conf. I
On 31-Dec-06, at 6:33 AM, Rolf Østvik wrote:
Hi
I have a simple query which uses 32ms on 7.4.14 and 1015ms on 8.2.0.
I guess 7.4.14 creates a better execution plan than 8.2.0 for this
query but
i don't know how to get it to select a better one.
Explain analyse output will be found near
Guy,
Did you tune postgresql ? How much memory does the box have? Have you
tuned postgresql ?
Dave
On 28-Dec-06, at 12:46 AM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
I don't want to violate any license agreement by discussing
performance, so I'll refer to a large, commercial PostgreSQL-
compatible DBMS
Hi,
On 28-Dec-06, at 8:58 PM, fabrix peñuelas wrote:
Good day,
I have been reading about the configuration of postgresql, but I
have a server who does not give me the performance that should. The
tables are indexed and made vacuum regularly, i monitor with top,
ps and pg_stat_activity
On 11-Dec-06, at 5:36 AM, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 12/11/06, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Daniel
On 10-Dec-06, at 8:02 PM, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote:
Hi Gene,
at my postgresql.conf, the only non-comented lines are:
fsync = off
This can, and will result
Unless you specifically ask for it postgresql doesn't lock any rows
when you update data.
Dave
On 6-Dec-06, at 2:04 AM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Does PostgreSQL lock the entire row in a table if I update only 1
column?
--
Groeten,
Joost Kraaijeveld
Askesis B.V.
Molukkenstraat 14
6524NB
On 6-Dec-06, at 8:20 AM, Jens Schipkowski wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:29:37 +0100, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Unless you specifically ask for it postgresql doesn't lock any
rows when you update data.
Thats not right. UPDATE will force a RowExclusiveLock to rows
matching
On 4-Dec-06, at 12:10 PM, Mark Lonsdale wrote:
Hi
We are migrating our Postgres 7.3.4 application to postgres 8.1.5
and also moving it to a server with a much larger hardware
configuration as well.The server will have the following
specification.
- 4 physical CPUs
Brian,
On 16-Nov-06, at 7:03 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
I'm trying to optimize a PostgreSQL 8.1.5 database running on an
Apple G5 Xserve (dual G5 2.3 GHz w/ 8GB of RAM), running Mac OS X
10.4.8 Server.
The queries on the database are mostly reads, and I know a larger
shared memory allocation
On 17-Oct-06, at 3:05 PM, Behl, Rohit ((Infosys)) wrote: HiWe are facing performance problems in postgres while executing a query. When I execute this query on the server it takes 5-10 seconds. Also I get good performance while executing this query from my code in java with the hard codes values.
Ben,
On 20-Oct-06, at 3:49 AM, Ben Suffolk wrote:
Hello all,
I am currently working out the best type of machine for a high
volume pgsql database that I going to need for a project. I will be
purchasing a new server specifically for the database, and it won't
be running any other
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other benchmarks
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ...
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten
Have you tuned postgresql ?
You still haven't told us what the machine is, or the tuning
parameters. If you follow Merlin's links you will find his properly
tuned postgres out performs mysql in every case.
--dc--
On 14-Sep-06, at 2:55 AM, yoav x wrote:
You can use the test with InnoDB by
On 14-Sep-06, at 11:23 AM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
My setup:
Freebsd 6.1
Postgresql 8.1.4
Memory: 8GB
SATA Disks
Raid 1 10 spindles (2 as hot spares)
500GB disks (16MB buffer), 7200 rpm
Raid 10
Raid 2 4 spindles
150GB 10K rpm disks
Raid 10
shared_buffers = 1
shared buffers should be
Francisco
On 14-Sep-06, at 1:36 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
What is effective_cache set to ?
Increasing this seems to have helped significantly a web app. Load
times seem magnitudes faster.
Increased it to effective_cache_size = 12288 # 96MB
What is a reasonable
Francisco
On 14-Sep-06, at 4:30 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
What is a reasonable number?
I estimate I have at least 1 to 2 GB free of memory.
You are using 6G of memory for something else ?
Right now adding up from ps the memory I have about 2GB.
Have an occassional
On 14-Sep-06, at 7:50 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
personally, I'd set this to about 6G. This doesn't actually
consume memory it is just a setting to tell postgresql how much
memory is being used for cache and kernel buffers
Gotcha. Will increase further.
regarding
On 13-Sep-06, at 6:16 AM, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
I have had extremely bad performance historically with onboard
SATA chipsets
on Linux. The one exception has been with the Intel based
chipsets (not the
CPU, the I/O chipset).
This board has Intel chipset. I cannot remember the exact type
All of the tuning parameters would affect all queries
shared buffers, wal buffers, effective cache, to name a few
--dc--
On 13-Sep-06, at 8:24 AM, yoav x wrote:
Hi
I am trying to run sql-bench against PostgreSQL 8.1.4 on Linux.
Some of the insert tests seems to be ver slow
For example:
wrote:
So why are these queries so slow in PG?
--- Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the tuning parameters would affect all queries
shared buffers, wal buffers, effective cache, to name a few
--dc--
On 13-Sep-06, at 8:24 AM, yoav x wrote:
Hi
I am trying to run sql-bench against
Hi, Arjen,
On 8-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Hi,
We've been running our webapp database-benchmark again on mysql
and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine
equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey
(5080). And compared
On 8-Sep-06, at 8:44 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Hi, Arjen,
The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons.
Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-
processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But
then again
On 5-Sep-06, at 9:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 9/1/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think 'shared buffers' is one of the most overrated settings
from a
performance standpoint. however you must ensure there is
enough for
things the server does besides caching. It
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
