Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-16 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any idea where I can get my hands on the latest version. I found the original post from Tom, but I thought there was a later version with both number of pages and time to sleep as knobs. That was as far as I got. I think Jan posted a more

Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-16 Thread Joe Conway
are interested. I'll report back once I have some results. Joe Index: src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtree.c === RCS file: /home/pgsql/CvsRoot/pgsql-server/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtree.c,v retrieving revision 1.106 diff -c -b -r1.106

Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-15 Thread Joe Conway
there was a later version with both number of pages and time to sleep as knobs. Thanks, Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-15 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any idea where I can get my hands on the latest version. I found the original post from Tom, but I thought there was a later version with both number of pages and time to sleep as knobs. That was as far as I got. I think Jan posted a more

Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-15 Thread Joe Conway
it a try on one of my own machines (all Linux, either RHAS3, RH9, or Fedora). Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-13 Thread Joe Conway
. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[PERFORM] rapid degradation after postmaster restart

2004-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
minutes. Restarting the postmaster causes the cycle to repeat, i.e. the first one or two inserts are back to the 1.5 minute range. Any ideas spring to mind? I don't have much experience with Postgres on Solaris -- could it be related to that somehow? Thanks for any insights. Joe

Re: [PERFORM] Maximum Possible Insert Performance?

2003-11-23 Thread Joe Conway
always restore from last night and re-run everything that was done since then. If you can, use COPY -- it is far faster than INSERT. See: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-copy.html HTH, Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner

Re: [PERFORM] Another weird one with an UPDATE

2003-10-13 Thread Joe Conway
))? Also, have you run VACUUM ANALYZE lately? Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PERFORM] Another weird one with an UPDATE

2003-10-12 Thread Joe Conway
, this is still taking a long time. --- Seq Scan on user_account (cost=0.00..748990.51 rows=36242 width=716) Do you have an index on user_account.user_account_id? Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [PERFORM] Compare rows

2003-10-08 Thread Joe Conway
, but perhaps some sort of calculated checksum or hash would work to determine if the data has changed? Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings

2003-08-14 Thread Joe Conway
Scott Cain wrote: Oh, and I forgot to mention: it's highly compressed (bzip2 -9) and is 109M. Thanks. I'll grab a copy from home later today and see if I can find some time to poke at it. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe

Re: [PERFORM] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings

2003-08-06 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Scott Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A few days ago, I asked for advice on speeding up substring queries on the GENERAL mailing list. Joe Conway helpfully pointed out the ALTER TABLE STORAGE EXTERNAL documentation. After doing the alter, the queries got slower! Here

Re: [PERFORM] Odd performance results - more info

2003-08-05 Thread Joe Conway
. HTH, Joe ---(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

Re: [PERFORM] One table or many tables for data set

2003-07-22 Thread Joe Conway
). Then do: SELECT num1, num2, num3 FROM mytable WHERE element = 'an_element' order by date DESC LIMIT 20; Replace num1, num2, num3 by whatever columns you want, and LIMIT X as the number of rows you want. HTH, Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware performance

2003-07-17 Thread Joe Conway
the constraint of 5 drives? 1 drive for OS, and 4 for RAID 1+0 for data-plus-WAL? I guess the ideal would be to find enough money for that 6th drive, use the mirrored pair for both OS and WAL. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware performance

2003-07-17 Thread Joe Conway
Adam Witney wrote: I think the issue from the original posters point of view is that the Dell PE2650 can only hold a maximum of 5 internal drives True enough, but maybe that's a reason to be looking at other alternatives. I think he said the hardware hasn't been bought yet. Joe

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware performance

2003-07-17 Thread Joe Conway
Jean-Luc Lachance wrote: I am currious. How can you have RAID 1+0 with only 2 drives? If you are thinking about partitioning the drives, wont this defeate the purpose? Yeah -- Hannu already pointed out that my mind was fuzzy when I made that statement :-(. See subsequent posts. Joe

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware performance

2003-07-17 Thread Joe Conway
? Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] Sanity check requested

2003-07-17 Thread Joe Conway
set sort_mem too high, and you have a lot of simultaneous sorts, you can drive the server into swapping, which obviously is a very bad thing. You want it set as high as possible, but not so high given your usage patterns that you wind up swapping. Joe ---(end

<    1   2