On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than
> > the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has
> > 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system.
>
> Spindle speed does not correla
It might be helpful to include a sample query that is running slower
than you expect, with the table structure, and the output of explain
{query}.
Gavin
Leon Out wrote:
Hello all. I am in the midst of porting a large web application from a
MS SQL Server backend to PostgreSQL. The migration work
> "LO" == Leon Out <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LO> project. The results so far have been disappointing, with Postgres
LO> performing queries in about the same time as SQL Server even though
LO> Postgres is running on a dedicated box with about 4 times the clock
LO> speed of the SQL Server box.
> Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than
> the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has
> 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system.
Spindle speed does not correlate with 'throughput' in any easy way. What
controllers
> "LO" == Leon Out <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LO> Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than
LO> the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has
LO> 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system.
If you've got the time, try
All, thanks for your suggestions. I've tweaked my configuration, and I
think I've squeezed a little more performance out of the setup. I also
tried running several tests simultaneously against postgres and SQL
Server, and postgres did much better with the heavy load.
My new settings are:
max_co
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:19:27PM -0500, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
> what he's doing, this might be a bottleneck. I don't like the virtual memory
> strategy of Linux too much and would rather increase this to 1 - 2 GB for the
> Postgres DB - Specially since he's not running anything else on the mac
Leon,
> Hello all. I am in the midst of porting a large web application from a
> MS SQL Server backend to PostgreSQL. The migration work is basically
> complete, and we're at the testing and optimization phase of the
> project. The results so far have been disappointing, with Postgres
> perfor
Bruce,
my bet is on the limited amount of shared memory. The setup as posted by Leon
only shows 80 MB. On a 4 GB database, that's not all that much. Depending on
what he's doing, this might be a bottleneck. I don't like the virtual memory
strategy of Linux too much and would rather increase thi
Please run your largest (worst) queries using EXPLAIN ANALYZE and send
in the results so we can see how the queries are being executed &
optimized.
On Feb 12, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Leon Out wrote:
Hello all. I am in the midst of porting a large web application from a
MS SQL Server backend to Post
Leon Out wrote:
> Hello all. I am in the midst of porting a large web application from a
> MS SQL Server backend to PostgreSQL. The migration work is basically
> complete, and we're at the testing and optimization phase of the
> project. The results so far have been disappointing, with Postgres
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Leon Out wrote:
> Hello all. I am in the midst of porting a large web application from a
> MS SQL Server backend to PostgreSQL. The migration work is basically
> complete, and we're at the testing and optimization phase of the
> project. The results so far have been disappo
12 matches
Mail list logo
