Ciao Pietro,
stavo seguendo thread sulla mailing list Postgresql.
Puoi farmi un piccolo riassunto delle conclusioni perchè non sono sicuro di
aver capito tutto?
Ciao Domenico,
sì effettivamente la mailing list è un po’ dispersiva.
Utilizzando il collation di tipo “C” il Dell T420 impiega
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
sorry for the latency but server was down due to a error I made in the
sysctl.conf file.
Yes, but are the defaults for those two systems? on psql, use \l to see.
\l returns the following:
I meant “collation”, not “collection”.
Pietro
Il giorno 07/apr/2015, alle ore 18:49, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com ha
scritto:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
sorry for the latency but server was down due to a error I made
Hi Jeff
The default collation for the database cluster is set when you create the
cluster with initdb (the package you used to install postgresql might provide
scripts that wrap initdb and call it something else, sorry I can't be much
use with those).
You can set it with --lc-collate
Hi Josh,
Did you already post the results of:
cat /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode
zone_reclaim_mode was set on 0 for all my tests. I’ve also set it to the other
values (1, 2, 4) but there was no improvement. Tests results are the following
(1 run for each test):
echo 0
Sorry, how much disk space is actually used by the tables, indexes, etc
involved in your queries? Or it that's a bit much to get, how much disk
space is occupied by your database in total?
A more simple overview might be numactl —hardware”
It returns the following output:
sh-4.3# numactl --hardware
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
node 0 size: 64385 MB
node 0 free: 56487 MB
node 1 cpus: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Hi Aidan,
thank you again for your support.
I found an interesting article showing better performance from a Intel i5 vs a
Intel Xeon on different Postgres versions:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/performance-since-postgresql-7-4-to-9-4-pgbench
I have to say that MacMini has a 2011 CPU (
Hi didier,
thank you for your time.
I forgot to display before the output of free. I’ve looked into it before and I
found difficult to fully understand if there was something wrong.
Before starting Postgres:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:
Hi Josh,
at the moment the server is unreachable so I can’t calculate sizes. I run all
of my test both with all data loaded into Postgres and with no data loaded
(except from the single 20mln rows table with relative indexes).
To give you an idea, with all data loaded into Postgres with indexes
Hi Wei Shan,
Thank you for your response.
Query B was run after initializing the DB ex-novo doing VACUUM ANALYZE before
and after creating and clustering indexes.
By the way, these results are consistent through time and are reproducible, so
it’s not a metter of statistic collector (I guess).
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
*T420*
work_mem = 512MB
*MacMini*
work_mem = 32MB
So that is why the T420 does memory sorts and the mini does disk sorts.
I'd start looking at why memory sorts on the T420 is so slow. Check your
numa settings,
Hi Jeff,
thank you for your response.
I’m using Postgres 9.0 on MacMini because I’ve noticed that it’s quite fast
compared to different Ubuntu machines on which I’ve worked with different (and
more performant) hardware.
The built-in Postgres version on OS X Server is impossible to update. I
: [PERFORM] Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than
a MacMini with PostgreSQL
Hi Ilya,
thank your for your response.
Both system were configured for each test I’ve done. On T420 I’ve optimized
the
kernel following the official Postgres documentation (
http://www.postgresql.org/docs
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
thank you for your response.
I’m using Postgres 9.0 on MacMini because I’ve noticed that it’s quite fast
compared to different Ubuntu machines on which I’ve worked with different
(and more performant)
Hi Gerardo,
thank you for your response.
At the moment I can’t switch to RAID10. I know it has best performance, but
both systems have RAID5 and MacMini has a consumer desktop RAID solution while
T420 has a server-grade one.
Anyway, I used two configurations for each system: one for data loading
Hi Ilya,
thank your for your response.
Both system were configured for each test I’ve done. On T420 I’ve optimized the
kernel following the official Postgres documentation (
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/kernel-resources.html ):
kernel.shmmax=68719476736
kernel.shmall=16777216
Hi
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
I’ve searched just now what a collation is because I’ve never explicitly
used one before, so I think it uses the default one.
What's the output of free and sysctl -a | grep vm.zone_reclaim_mode
Search the
Hi Tigran,
The modern CPUs trying to be too smart.
try to run this code to disable CPUs c-states:
setcpulatency.c
#include stdio.h
#include fcntl.h
#include stdint.h
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int32_t l;
int fd;
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, Usage:
Il giorno 02/apr/2015, alle ore 14:29, didier did...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
thank you for your response.
I’m using Postgres 9.0 on MacMini because I’ve noticed that it’s quite fast
compared to
Hi Aidan,
T420
work_mem = 512MB
MacMini
work_mem = 32MB
So that is why the T420 does memory sorts and the mini does disk sorts.
I'd start looking at why memory sorts on the T420 is so slow. Check your
numa settings, etc (as already mentioned).
For a drastic test, disable
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
the command
dmesg | grep -i numa
doesn’t display me anything. I think T420 hasn’t NUMA on it. Is there a
way to enable it from Ubuntu? I don’t have immediate access to BIOS (server
is in another location).
NUMA
This question was posted originally on
http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/96444/cant-get-dell-pe-t420-perc-h710-perform-better-than-a-macmini-with-postgresql
and they suggested to post it on this mailing list.
It's months that I'm trying to solve a performance issue with PostgreSQL. I’m
Hi Pietro,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
T420: went from 311seconds (default postgresql.conf) to 195seconds doing
tuning adjustments over RAID, kernel and postgresql.conf;
MacMini: 40seconds.
I'am afraid, the matter is, that PostgreSQL is not
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
*Now let’s propose some query profiling times.*
B type set are transactions, so it's impossible for me to post EXPLAIN
ANALYZE results. I've extracted two querys from a single transactions and
executed the twos on
Just looking at the 2 B_2 queries, I'm curious as to why is the execution
plan different between the 2 machines. Is the optimiser stats updated on
both databases?
Regards,
Wei Shan
On 1 April 2015 at 22:32, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Pietro Pugni
Ok, a quick view on the system, and some things that may be important to note:
Our deployment machine is a Dell PowerEdge T420 with a Perc H710 RAID
controller configured in this way:
* VD0: two 15k SAS disks (ext4, OS partition, WAL partition,
RAID1)
* VD1: ten 10k SAS disks
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Pietro Pugni pietro.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
This question was posted originally on
http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/96444/cant-get-dell-pe-t420-perc-h710-perform-better-than-a-macmini-with-postgresql
and they suggested to post it on this mailing list.
28 matches
Mail list logo
