On Oct 16, 2014 12:58 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Igor Neyman iney...@perceptron.com writes:
From: Dave Johansen [mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com]
This conversation has probably become a bit off topic, but my
understanding is that what you're paying RedHat for is a stable platform
is so essential for a DBA, that it is better to learn both
methods, at least to be able to choose correctly? But maybe it is a
rhetorical question.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
I would say that's the one thing that rsync is *not*. pg_basebackup
On Oct 22, 2013 1:14 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 22.10.2013 00:59, sparikh wrote:
Yes, Expalin without Analyze is taking long. It is weird. In the
pg_stat_activity Explain was the only query running. So server was
almost idle. Using New relic interface I checked CPU was almost
, and then rename the new one into place (typically
in a transaction). (If your app, documentation or dba doesn't mind the
index changing names, you don't need to rename of course, you can just
drop the old one).
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com
statement ?
You can use something like SELECT pg_get_indexdef(indexrelid) FROM
pg_index. You will need to filter it not to include system indexes,
toast, etc, and then insert the CONCURRENCY part, but it should give
you a good startingpoint.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work
entire
database - this seems wrong to me, however I have no clue why this would
happen.
My first guess would be that your archive_command is failing - so
check your logs for that. If that command fails, no xlog files will
ever be rotated (since it would invalidate your backups).
--
Magnus
me if it's
not possible.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
-performance
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/6 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
That's not a good way of doing it, since you loose persistent storage.
Instead, you should set the stats_temp_dir paramter to a filesystem
somewhere else that is tmpfs
the
output to stdout and then pipe that through pigz.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref
don't lie about when
they've written to RAM.
Doesn't most SSDs without supercaps lie about the writes, though?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes
kernel with. Unless you can get it all the
way into the baseline kernel of course, but that's not going to be
easy...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes
my breath for
that one.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
on a
partitioned table. 9.1, however, can do that.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
themselves dependant on an Oracle controlled technology. That argument
certainly went away when Oracle bought them - and I think that was the
main reason. Not the oracle mindset or anything like that...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent
.
- Is the linux support of the LSI and Adaptec cards comparable?
Can't comment on that one, sorry.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription
til
rollback etc.
Yeah, AFAIK pgbouncer works fine on Windows, and is a very good pooler
for PostgreSQL. I haven't run it on Windows myself, but it should
support it fine...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance
pgbouncer
in between with support for SUSPEND makes a lot of difference if you
switch master/slave on your replication /ha. It'll still break the
connections for jboss, but it'll recover from that a *lot* faster than
a reconfig.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill
there?
+1 on this idea in general, if we can think up a good API - this seems
very useful to me, and you have some good examples there of cases
where it'd definitely be a help.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 15:59, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 21:19, David Jarvis thanga...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer to_timestamp and to_date over the more verbose construct_timestamp.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Those
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:58, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... (We presumably want
timezone to default to the system timezone setting, but I wonder how
we should make that work
over the more verbose construct_timestamp.
Yeah, I agree with that.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
date and an hour.
Agreed.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis thanga...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
year)? This could be potentially
not actively using
it (in which case you will control this from pg_hba.conf), just edit
postgresql.conf and disable SSL, then restart the server.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance
/Advanced%20PostgreSQL%20on%20Windows.pdf
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:19, Alan McKay alan.mc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
That's not true at all.
If you have many relations in your cluster that have at some point been
touched, the starts collector can create
On 21 sep 2009, at 23.41, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Alan McKay wrote:
And if so, where does that extra load go? ? ?Disk? ?CPU? ?RAM?
As of 8.4.X the load isn't measurable.
Thanks Bruce. What about 8.3 since that is our current production
DB?
Same. All statsistics settings
to struggle with tuning the FSM in 8.4 is another
thing that makes life a *lot* easier in this kind of installations.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make
of a couple of representative queries right as the
database has started? That should pre-populate the cache before your
users get there, hopefully.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql
variants to use connection pooling without using postgres users?
Not that I know of.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
Tom Lane wrote:
Linos i...@linos.es writes:
Tom Lane escribió:
That's just weird --- ssl off should be ssl off no matter which knob you
use to turn it off. Are you sure it's really off in the slow connections?
Maybe i am missing something, i use the same command to connect to it
from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
wait a min here, postgres is supposed to be able to survive a
complete box
failure without corrupting the database, if killing a process can
corrupt
the database it sounds like a major problem.
Yes it is a major problem,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at
East that based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above
2GB would not really receive significant use. However, Jignesh
Jessica Richard wrote:
I have a large table with about 2 million rows and it will keep
growing...
I need to do update/inserts, and select as well.
An index will speed up the select, but it will slow down the updates.
Are all Postgres indexes ordered? i.e., with every update, the index
Potluri Srikanth wrote:
Hi all,
I need to do a bulk data loading around 704GB (log file size) at
present in 8 hrs (1 am - 9am). The data file size may increase 3 to
5 times in future.
Using COPY it takes 96 hrs to finish the task.
What is the best way to do it ?
HARDWARE: SUN
Matthew wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
4 x 147GB 15000 rpm SCSI in RAID 10 with 320-1 RAID CARD + 64MB
cache BBU
2x Intel Xeon E5405 / 4x 2.00GHz / 1333MHz FSB / 12MB cache
6GB RAM
Cost around 2320 GBP -- it would be great to get it under 2000
Needs to
Roberts, Jon wrote:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 8.3rc1 Out of memory when performing update
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a
newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error
when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a
poor
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:10:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Guillaume Smet wrote:
beta RPMs are by default compiled with --enable-debug and
--enable-cassert which doesn't help them to fly fast...
Got that right. Last time I was
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...Since you've now shown that OpenBabel is
multithreaded, then that's a much more likely cause.
Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be
linked to Postgres?
Absolutely not.
Ok,
Campbell, Lance wrote:
How can I clear the pg_stats views without restarting PostgreSQL? I
thought there was a function.
pg_stat_reset()
//Magnus
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
You're likely better off (performance-wise) putting it on the same disk
as the database itself if that one has better RAID, for example.
I'm thinking along the lines of since nothing much writes to the OS
Disk, I should(keyword) be safe.
Unless it's *always* in the cache
Ketema wrote:
I am trying to build a very Robust DB server that will support 1000+
concurrent users (all ready have seen max of 237 no pooling being
used). I have read so many articles now that I am just saturated. I
have a general idea but would like feedback from others.
I understand
Tomas Vondra wrote:
How does pg utilize multiple processors? The more the better?
Linux version uses processes, so it's able to use multiple processors.
(Not sure about Windows version, but I guess it uses threads.)
No, the Windows version also uses processes.
//Magnus
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 22:58 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
2) separate the transaction log from the database
It's mostly written, and it's the most valuable data you have. And in
case you use PITR, this is the only thing that really needs to be
backed up.
My
Ron St-Pierre wrote:
Joe Uhl wrote:
I realize there are people who discourage looking at Dell, but i've been
very happy with a larger ball of equipment we ordered recently from
them. Our database servers consist of a PowerEdge 2950 connected to a
PowerVault MD1000 with a 1 meter SAS cable.
I'd consider having a small daemon LISTENing for NOTIFYs that you send by
triggers whenever the table has changed. That'll make sure it only dumps if
something actually changed. And you can also implement some ratelimiting if
needed.
/Magnus
--- Original Message ---
From: Jeffrey
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Magnus Hagander schrieb:
I'd consider having a small daemon LISTENing for NOTIFYs that you send
by triggers whenever the table has changed. That'll make sure it only
dumps if something actually changed. And you can also implement some
ratelimiting if needed.
Do you
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:13AM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
Am I right if this
Tom Lane wrote:
PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What version of PostgreSQL are you using?
I think newbies should be pushed a bit to use the latest versions,
How about pushed *hard* ? I'm constantly amazed at the number of people
who show up in the lists saying they installed 7.3.2 or
Sachchida Ojha wrote:
Hi,
I am new to PostgreSQL database. Can anybody help me (or point me the
related post) to install PostgreSQL on windows XP from command line.
(From .bat file)
http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/silent.html
//Magnus
---(end of
James Mansion wrote:
Alexander Staubo wrote:
On 5/23/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An example would be:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE name like '%john%' or street like
'%srt%'
Anyway, the query planner always does seq scan on the whole table and
that
takes
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
Heikki,
PostgreSQL on Windows. My current rule of thumb on Windows: set
shared_buffers to minimum * 2
Adjust effective_cache_size to the number given as system cache
within the task manager.
Why?
I tried with shared_buffers = 50% of available memory, and
Thanks for all the feedback. Unfortunately I didn't specify that this
is running on a WinXP machine (the 3D renderer is an ActiveX plugin),
and I don't even think nice is available. I've tried using the
Windows Task Manager to set every postgres.exe process to a low
priority, but that
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 10:45:48AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Today's survey is: just what are *you* doing to collect up the
information about your system made available by the various pg_stat views?
I have this hacked together script that dumps them into a file, imports
them into another
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:43:06AM +, Andres Retzlaff wrote:
Hi,
I have pg 8.1.4 running in
Windows XP Pro
wirh a Pentium D
and I notice that I can not use more than 50% of the cpus (Pentium D has 2
cpus), how can I change the settings to use the 100% of it.
A single query will
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:10:48AM +, Andres Retzlaff wrote:
Hi Magnus,
in this case each CPU goes up to 50%, giveing me 50% total usage. I was
specting as you say 1 query 100% cpu.
Any ideas?
No. 1 query will only use 100% of *one* CPU, which means 50% total usage.
You need at least
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 3/20/07, Ireneusz Pluta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Tom Lane wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 3/2/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this explains the trigger that was blowing up my FC4 box.
I dug in the archives a bit and couldn't find the report you're
referring to?
I
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 12:49:14AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 3/1/07, Shiva Sarna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At
present it is 100.
Most certainly.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 04:24:12PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Madison Kelly wrote:
Hi all,
I'd really like to come up with a more intelligent search engine that
doesn't take two minutes to return results. :) I know, in the end good
indexes and underlying
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying
which Xeon processors don't have this problem.
AFAIK the cut-off point is at the Woodcrests. They are overall
Jeremy Haile wrote:
I am sure that this has been discussed before, but I can't seem to find
any recent posts. (I am running PostgreSQL 8.2)
I have always ran PostgreSQL on Linux in the past, but the company I am
currently working for uses Windows on all of their servers. I don't
have the
You may try to figure out what's the process doing (the backend
obviously, not the frontend (Tcl) process) by attaching
to it with
strace.
It's so sad when us poor Windows guys get helpful hints from people
assume that we're smart enough to run *NIX... ;-)
You should try a
Hello Performancers,
has anyone a pgBench tool running on Windows?
Does the one that ships in the installer not work?
//Magnus
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Hello,
Shridhar Daithankar and Josh Berkus write on
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
shared_memory
There is one way to decide what is best for you. Set a high
value of this parameter and run the database for typical
usage. Watch usage of shared
So: has anybody a hint how I can check how much shared_memory
is really used by PostgreSQL on Windows, to fine tune
this parameter?
I learned the hard way that just rising it can lead to a hard
performance loss :)
Not really sure :) We're
anonymous mapped memory site:microsoft.com turns out 0 (zero)
results. And even splitting it up there seems to be nearly no
information ... is the same thing by any chance also known by
different names?
Hmm. Yeah, most likely :) I may have grabbed that name from
something
Hi,
We are seeing hanging queries on Windows 2003 Server SP1 with dual
CPU, looks like one of the process is blocked. In a lot of cases,
the whole DB is blocked if this process is holding important locks.
Looks like this issue was discussed in the following thread a few
month ago, but
First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is
a
sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe
(flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true).
*cough* BS *cough*
Linux is Linux. It doesn't matter what trademark you put on top of
it.
As
There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the
controllers had a wrieback enable option like the LSI MegaRAID
adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75
75/25 0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.
They have a writeback option, but you
MSSQL can give either a graphical query plan or a text-based
one similar to PG. There's no way that I've found to get the
equivalent of an EXPLAIN ANALYZE, but I'm by no means an MSSQL guru.
SET STATISTICS IO ON
SET STATISTICS PROFILE ON
SET STATISTICS TIME ON
//Magnus
I beleive the function to kill a backend is actually in the
codebase,
it's just commented out because it's considered dangerous.
There are
some possible issues (see -hackers archives) about sending SIGTERM
without actually shutting down the whole cluster.
Doing the client-side
There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds, of entries in the
pg-admin, pg-general, and pg-performance lists regarding
killing a session, but as far as I can tell, there is no
Postgres solution. Did I miss something?
This raises the question: Why doesn't Postgres have a kill
session
PostgreSQL elects not to use them. I assume, because it most
likely needs to traverse the entire table anyway.
if i change: / substr(t0.code,1,2) not in
('14','15','16','17')/
to (removing the NOT): /substr(t0.code,1,2) in
('14','15','16','17')/
it uses the index,
FWIW, I've found problems running PostgreSQL on Windows in a
multi-CPU environment on w2k3. It runs fine for some
period, and
then CPU and throughput drop to zero. So far I've
been unable to
track down any more information than that, other than the
fact that
I
FWIW, I've found problems running PostgreSQL on Windows in a
multi-CPU environment on w2k3. It runs fine for some period, and
then CPU and throughput drop to zero. So far I've been unable to
track down any more information than that, other than the
fact that
I haven't been
Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have
to support
mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help.
Ouch, that hurts.
To support mysql, they break performance for _every other_
database system?
Actually, it probably helps on SQLite as well. And considering they only
For now, I only could get good performance with bacula and
postgresql
when disabling fsync...
Isn't that less safe?
Most definitly.
FWIW, I'm getting pretty good speeds with Bacula and PostgreSQL on a
reasonably small db (file table about 40 million rows, filename about
5.2 million
This is a blatant thread steal... but here we go...
Do people have any opinions on the pgsql driver?
It's very nice.
How does it compare with the odbc in terms of performance?
I haven't measured specifically, but if you're tlaking .net it should be
better. It's all in managed code, so you
Is it possible to get a stack trace from the stuck process?
I dunno
if you've got anything gdb-equivalent under Windows, but that's the
first thing I'd be interested in ...
Here ya go:
http://www.devisser-siderius.com/stack1.jpg
http://www.devisser-siderius.com/stack2.jpg
I dunno
if you've got anything gdb-equivalent under Windows,
but that's
the first thing I'd be interested in ...
Here ya go:
http://www.devisser-siderius.com/stack1.jpg
http://www.devisser-siderius.com/stack2.jpg
Could it be they broke it when they did that
In theory, yes, but it still seems a bit far fetched :-(
Well, I rolled back SP1 and am running my test again. Looking
much better, hasn't locked up in 45mins now, whereas before
it would lock up within 5mins.
So I think they broke
Is it possible to get a stack trace from the stuck process?
I dunno if you've got anything gdb-equivalent under Windows,
but that's the first thing I'd be interested in ...
Try Process Explorer from www.sysinternals.com.
//Magnus
---(end of
Perhaps we should put a link on the home page underneath LATEST
RELEASEs saying
7.2: de-supported
with a link to a scary note along the lines of the above.
ISTM that there are still too many people on older releases.
We probably need an explanation of why we support so
That way if someone wanted to upgrade from 7.2 to 8.1, they
can just
grab the latest dumper from the website, dump their old
database, then
upgrade easily.
But if they're upgrading to 8.1, don't they already have the new
pg_dump? How else are they going to dump their *new*
Because I think we need to. The above would only delete rows
that have name = 'obsid' and value = 'oid080505'. We need to
delete all rows that have the same ids as those rows.
However, from what you note, I bet we could do:
DELETE FROM tmp_table2 WHERE id IN
(SELECT id FROM
I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
certainly...
performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently long psql
script would probably crash a Windows machine.
actually, it's worse than that, it's more of a dos on the
whole system, as windows will
AFAICS it is appropriate to move the sigsetjmp and
setup_cancel_handler calls in front of the per-line loop inside
MainLoop --- can anyone see a reason not to?
hm. mainloop is re-entrant, right? That means each \i
would reset the
handler...what is downside to keeping global flag?
Both win32 send/recv have pgwin32_poll_signals() in them.
This is glorified WaitForSingleObjectEx on global
pgwin32_signal_event. This is probably part of the problem.
Can we work some of the same magic you put into check interrupts
macro?
Uh, we already do that, don't we?
I'd like to use the win32 provided recv(), send()
functions instead
of redirect them to pgwin32_recv()/pgwin32_send(), just
like libpq
does. If we do this, we will lose some functionalities,
but I'd like
to see the performance difference first. -- do you think
that will
I've done the tests with rc1. This is still as slow on windows ...
about
6-10
times slower thant linux (via Ip socket). (depending on
using prepared
queries, etc...)
By the way, we've tried to insert into the windows database from a
linux
psql
client, via the network. In this
This smells like a TCP communication problem.
I'm puzzled by that remark. How much does TCP get into the
picture in a local Windows client/server environment?
Windows has no Unix Domain Sockets (no surprise there), so TCP
connections over the loopback interface are used to connect to
[very, very offtopic]
Ok. This comparition is just as useless as the other one,
because it's comparing oranges with apples (It's funny
anyway). I was just choosing an example in which you can see
the best of postgresql against 'not so nice' behavior of
mssql2000 (no service pack, it's my
In the past week, one guy of Unix Group in Colombia
say: Postgrest in production is bat, if the power off in any
time the datas is lost why this datas is in plain files.
Postgrest no ssupport data bases with more 1 millon of records.
Wath tell me in this respect?, is more best Informix as
Question, though: is HP still using their proprietary RAID
card? And, if so,
have they fixed its performance problems?
According to my folks here, we're using the CCISS controllers, so I
guess they are. The systems are nevertheless performing very well --
we did a load test that was
The this day and age argument isn't very convincing. Hard drive
capacity growth has far outstripped hard drive seek time
and bandwidth improvements.
Random access has more penalty than ever.
In point of fact, there haven't been noticeable seek time
improvements
for years.
One thing that stands out is how terribly bad Windows
performed with many small single transactions and fsync=true.
Appearantly fsync on Windows is a very costly operation.
What's the hardware? If you're running on disks with write cache
enabled, fsync on windows will write through the
What platform is this on? It seems very strange/fishy
that all the
actual-time values are exact integral milliseconds.
My machine is WinXP professional, athon xp 2100, but I get similar
results on my Intel P4 3.0Ghz as well (which is also
running WinXP).
Why do you ask?
Do we need actual high precision time, or do we just need
to be able
to get high precision differences? Getting the differences
is fairly
easy, but if you need to sync up any drif then it becomes
a bit more
difficult.
You're right, we only care about differences not absolute
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
