Your experiment made far too many assumptions and the data does not
stand up to scrutiny.
On 1/18/06, Alessandro Baretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Results: I'll omit the numerical data, which everyone can easily obtain in
> only
> a few minutes, repeating the experiment. I used several query s
On 1/9/06, Kelly Burkhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Among the other tricks having lots of RAM allows:
> > If some of your tables are Read Only or VERY rarely written to, you
> > can preload them at boot time and make them RAM resident using the
On 1/6/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PostgreSQL 8.1.1
>
> shared_buffers = 1 # (It was higher, 50k, but didn't help any,
> so brought down to free ram for disk cache)
> work_mem = 8196
> random_page_cost = 3
> effective_cache_size = 25
I have played with both disk cache set
On 24 Dec 2005 10:25:09 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Harry Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I always look at the explain plans.
> >
> > =# explain select item_id, term_frequency from
I am currently using a dual Opteron (248) single core system (RAM
PC3200) and for a change I am finding that the bottleneck is not disk
I/O but CPU/RAM (not sure which). The reason for this is that the most
frequently accessed tables/indexes are all held in RAM and when
querying the database there
On 12/15/05, Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PostgreSQL 8.1.1 should give you greater performance...
Indeed it has.
I am seeing a 25% increase in one particular select statement. This
increases to 32% with
set enable_bitmapscan to off;
I also ran a test script full of commo
On 12/16/05, Moritz Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is really weird, just a few hours ago the machine run very smooth
> serving the data for a big portal.
Can you log the statements that are taking a long time and post them
to the list with the table structures and indexes for the tables
my config file.
max_fsm_pages = 50 # I am thinking this might be a bit low.
max_fsm_relations = 1000
Any pointers to better hardware or recommendations on settings gladly recieved.
Regards,
Harry Jackson.
-- http://www.hjackson.orghttp://www.uklug.co.uk
