Lago, Bruno Almeida do wrote:
Hello my friends,
I'd like to know (based on your experience and technical details) which OS
is recommended for running PostgreSQL keeping in mind 3 indicators:
1 - Performance (SO, Network and IO)
2 - SO Stability
3 - File System Integrity
The short answer is almost
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 07:35:35AM +0100, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
You might look at Opteron's, which theoretically have a higher data
bandwidth. If you're doing anything data intensive, like a sort in
memory, this could make a difference.
Would Opteron systems need 64-bit postgresql (and os,
Doing some rather crude comparative performance tests
between PG 8.0.1 on Windows XP and SQL Server 2000, PG
whips SQL Server's ass on
insert into junk (select * from junk)
on a one column table defined as int.
If we start with a 1 row table and repeatedly execute
this command, PG can take the
To be honest I've used compaq, dell and LSI SCSI RAID controllers and
got pretty pathetic benchmarks from all of them. The best system I
have is the one I just built:
2xOpteron 242, Tyan S2885 MoBo, 4GB Ram, 14xSATA WD Raptor drives:
2xRaid 1, 1x4 disk Raid 10, 1x6 drive Raid 10. 2x3ware (now
Hi all,
1) What kind of performance gain can I expect switching from
7.1 to 7.4 (or 8.0)? Obviously I'm doing my own testing,
but I'm not very impressed by 8.0 speed, may be I'm doing
testing on a low end server...
8.0 gives you savepoints. While this may not seem like a big
Hi all,
I have a freshly vacuumed table with 1104379 records with a index on zipcode.
Can anyone explain why the queries go as they go, and why the performance
differs so much (1 second versus 64 seconds, or stated differently, 1
records per second versus 1562 records per second) and why
Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Hi all,
I have a freshly vacuumed table with 1104379 records with a index on zipcode.
Can anyone explain why the queries go as they go, and why the performance
differs so much (1 second versus 64 seconds, or stated differently, 1
records per second versus 1562
Merlin Moncure wrote:
Corollary: use pl/pgsql. It can be 10 times or more faster than query
by query editing.
Merlin, thanks for your good suggestions.
By now, our system has never used stored procedures approach,
due to the fact that we're staying on the minimum common SQL features
that are
Alex Turner wrote:
To be honest I've used compaq, dell and LSI SCSI RAID controllers and
got pretty pathetic benchmarks from all of them.
I also have seen average-low results for LSI (at least the 1020 card).
2xOpteron 242, Tyan S2885 MoBo, 4GB Ram, 14xSATA WD Raptor drives:
2xRaid 1, 1x4 disk
Hi all,
I have a big table with ~ 10 Milion rows, and is a very
pain administer it, so after years I convinced my self
to partition it and replace the table usage ( only for reading )
with a view.
Now my user_logs table is splitted in 4:
user_logs
user_logs_2002
user_logs_2003
user_logs_2004
and
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 07:35:35AM +0100, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
You might look at Opteron's, which theoretically have a higher data
bandwidth. If you're doing anything data intensive, like a sort in
memory, this could make a difference.
Would Opteron systems need 64-bit
None - but I'll definately take a look..
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:11:30 +0100, Cosimo Streppone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Turner wrote:
To be honest I've used compaq, dell and LSI SCSI RAID controllers and
got pretty pathetic benchmarks from all of them.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
