Re: [PERFORM] RAID controllers etc... was: PostgreSQL data on a NAS device ?

2003-10-22 Thread Alexander Priem
So I guess the PERC4/Di RAID controller is pretty good. It seems that RedHat9 supports it out-of-the-box (driver 1.18f), but I gather from the sites mentioned before that upgrading this driver to 1.18i would be better... ---(end of broadcast)---

[PERFORM] Processors vs Memory

2003-10-22 Thread Hilary Forbes
If I have a fixed amount of money to spend as a general rule is it better to buy one processor and lots of memory or two processors and less memory for a system which is transactional based (in this case it's handling reservations). I realise the answer will be a generalised one but all the

Re: [PERFORM] Processors vs Memory

2003-10-22 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
Hilary Forbes wrote: If I have a fixed amount of money to spend as a general rule is it better to buy one processor and lots of memory or two processors and less memory for a system which is transactional based (in this case it's handling reservations). I realise the answer will be a

[PERFORM] Postgresql performance

2003-10-22 Thread CHEWTC
Hi Currently we are running Postgresql v7.3.2 on Redhat Linux OS v9.0. We have Windows2000 client machines inserting records into the Postgresql tables via ODBC. After a few weeks of usage, when we do a \d at the sql prompt, there was a duplicate object name, ie it can be a duplicate row of

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql performance

2003-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Currently we are running Postgresql v7.3.2 on Redhat Linux OS v9.0. We have Windows2000 client machines inserting records into the Postgresql tables via ODBC. After a few weeks of usage, when we do a \d at the sql prompt, there was a duplicate object name, ie it can

[PERFORM] slow select

2003-10-22 Thread Medora Schauer
I'm using pg 7.3.4 to do a select involving a join on 2 tables. The query is taking 15 secs which seems extreme to me considering the indices that exist on the two tables. EXPLAIN ANALYZE shows that the indices aren't being used. I've done VACUUM ANALYZE on the db with no change in

[PERFORM] poor cpu utilization on dual cpu box

2003-10-22 Thread Simon Sadedin
Folks, I’m hoping someone can give me some pointers to resolving an issue with postgres and it’s ability to utilize multiple CPUs effectively. The issue is that no matter how much query load we throw at our server it seems almost impossible to get it to utilize more than 50% cpu on a dual-cpu

Re: [PERFORM] RAID controllers etc... was: PostgreSQL data on a

2003-10-22 Thread Will LaShell
Heya On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 01:13, Alexander Priem wrote: So I guess the PERC4/Di RAID controller is pretty good. It seems that RedHat9 supports it out-of-the-box (driver 1.18f), but I gather from the sites mentioned before that upgrading this driver to 1.18i would be better... Actually

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql performance

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
NEC, After a few weeks of usage, when we do a \d at the sql prompt, there was a duplicate object name, ie it can be a duplicate row of index or table. When we do a \d table_name, it will show a duplication of column names inside the table. I think the version of PSQL and pg_dump which you

Re: [PERFORM] poor cpu utilization on dual cpu box

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Simon, The issue is that no matter how much query load we throw at our server it seems almost impossible to get it to utilize more than 50% cpu on a dual-cpu box. For a single connection we can use all of one CPU, but multiple connections fail to increase the overall utilization (although

Re: [PERFORM] Low Insert/Update Performance

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Rhaoni, Total runtime: 3.56 msec (4 rows) Well, from that figure it's not the query that's holding you up. You said that the system bogs down when you're doing a whole series of these updates, or just one? If the former, then I'm afraid that it's your disk that's to blame ... large

Re: [PERFORM] Low Insert/Update Performance

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Rhaoni, First of all , thank's for your atention and fast answer. The system really bogs down when I'm doing a whole series of these updates. That would be consistent with a single-disk problem. Take a look at my postgresql.conf I'm afraid of putting some parameters wrong ( too high or

Re: [PERFORM] poor cpu utilization on dual cpu box

2003-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are running with shared buffers large enough to hold the entire database Which is bad. This is not what shared buffers are for. See: http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html In fact, that may be the cause of the performance

Re: [PERFORM] poor cpu utilization on dual cpu box

2003-10-22 Thread Simon Sadedin
The suggestion that we are saturating the memory bus makes a lot of sense. We originally started with a low setting for shared buffers and resized it to fit all our tables (since we have memory to burn). That improved stand alone performance but not concurrent performance - this would explain

Re: [PERFORM] vacuum locking

2003-10-22 Thread Vivek Khera
RN == Rob Nagler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RN Vendor: DELL Model: PERCRAID Mirror Rev: V1.0 RN Type: Direct-AccessANSI SCSI revision: 02 AMI or Adaptec based? If AMI, make sure it has write-back cache enabled (and you have battery backup!), and disable the

Re: [PERFORM] vacuum locking

2003-10-22 Thread Vivek Khera
RN == Rob Nagler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RN This solution doesn't really fix the fact that VACUUM consumes the RN disk while it is running. I want to avoid the erratic performance on RN my web server when VACUUM is running. What's the disk utilization proir to running vacuum? If it is

Re: [PERFORM] slow select

2003-10-22 Thread Medora Schauer
Medora, I'm using pg 7.3.4 to do a select involving a join on 2 tables. The query is taking 15 secs which seems extreme to me considering the indices that exist on the two tables. EXPLAIN ANALYZE shows that the indices aren't being used. I've done VACUUM ANALYZE on the db with

Re: [PERFORM] slow select

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Medora, So why did were the indices not used before when they yield a better plan? Your .conf settings, most likely. I'd lower your random_page_cost and raise your effective_cache_size. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of

Re: [PERFORM] Tuning for mid-size server

2003-10-22 Thread Ron Johnson
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 14:27, Christopher Browne wrote: In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) wrote: So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as breaking the 4GB barrier, and even I can do the math on

Re: [PERFORM] slow select

2003-10-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Medora, Increasing effective_cache_size to 1 did it. That would be 78MB RAM. If you have more than that available, you can increase it further. Ideally, it should be about 2/3 to 3/4 of available RAM. The query now takes 4 secs. I left random_page_cost at the default value of 4.

Re: [PERFORM] Low Insert/Update Performance

2003-10-22 Thread Rhaoni Chiu Pereira
Hi List; Here follow the update query, explain analyze of it , my postgresql.conf and my db configuration. This is my first PostgreSQL DB so I would like to know if its performance is normal ! If there is some postgresql.conf's parameter that you think will optmize the database just tell me

Re: [PERFORM] vacuum locking

2003-10-22 Thread Rob Nagler
Vivek Khera writes: AMI or Adaptec based? Adaptec, I think. AIC-7899 LVD SCSI is what dmidecode says, and Red Hat/Adaptec aacraid driver, Aug 18 2003 is what comes up when it boots. I haven't be able to use the aac utilities with this driver, however, so it's hard to interrogate the device.

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql performance

2003-10-22 Thread CHEWTC
Hi The Postgresql package came from the Redhat v9.0 CDROM. I have checked the version using psql --version and it showed v7.3.2 How to check the pg_dump version? Thank you, REgards.