reading.
Can you give some hints, if this numbers seems to be reasonable?
kind regards
Janning
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB)
Those discs are 1.5TB, not 1.5GB.
sorry, my fault.
One disk for the system
thanks for your quick response, kenneth
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:47:34 you wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0200, Janning wrote:
Hi,
at the moment we encounter some performance problems with our database
server.
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3
On Thursday 24 June 2010 15:16:05 Janning wrote:
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 TB)
For each drive, you
because of some or even all
data needed to answer the query is still in the shared buffers.
janning
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
doesn't need to
consult the index if it has to read every page anyway. seq scan can be faster
on small tables. try (in psql) SET enable_seqscan TO off; before running
your query and see how postgres plans it without using seq scan.
janning
---(end of broadcast
Am Montag, 11. Oktober 2004 22:49 schrieb Francisco Reyes:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Janning Vygen wrote:
postgres uses a seq scan if its faster. In your case postgres seems to
know that most of your rows have a date 2004-01-01 and so doesn't need
to consult the index if it has to read every
.
kind regards
janning
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
can be the main bottleneck.
and teh combination of keepalive off, lingerd and mod_gzip is GREAT and i
didn't found much sites propagating a configuration like this.
kind regards,
janning
p.s: sorry for being slightly off topic and talking about apache but when it
comes to performance it is always
