Hi all,
Ia a Guy from Germany an a strong Postgres believer!
It is the best OpenSource Database i have ever have bee tasted and i
try to using
it in any Database Environments.
It is exiting to see thadt Verison 8.0 has Tablespaces like ORACLE and DB/2,
but i need Partitioning on a few very large
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Ia a Guy from Germany an a strong Postgres believer!
It is the best OpenSource Database i have ever have bee tasted and i
try to using
it in any Database Environments.
It is exiting to see thadt Verison 8.0 has Tablespaces like ORACLE and
DB/2,
but i need Partit
Hi all again,
My next queststion is dedicated to blobs in my Webapplication (using
Tomcat 5 and JDBC
integrated a the J2EE Appserver JBoss).
Filesystems with many Filesystem Objects can slow down the Performance
at opening
and reading Data.
My Question:
Can i speedup my Webapplication if i sto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all again,
My next queststion is dedicated to blobs in my Webapplication (using
Tomcat 5 and JDBC
integrated a the J2EE Appserver JBoss).
Filesystems with many Filesystem Objects can slow down the Performance
at opening
and reading Data.
Which filesystems? I know ext
Which filesystems? I know ext2 used to have issues with many-thousands
of files in one directory, but that was a directory scanning issue
rather than file reading.
From my Point of view i think it is better to let one Process do the
operation to an Postgres Cluster Filestructure as
if i bypass
Hmm,
I have asked some Peoples on the List an some one has posted this links
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00101.php
It is quite usefull to read but iam not sure thadt theese Trick is verry
helpfull.
I want to splitt my 1GByte Table into some little Partitions but ho
OK ... so just to clearify... (and pardon my ignorance):
I need to increase the value of 'default_statistics_target' variable and
then run VACUUM ANALYZE, right? If so what should I choose for the
'default_statistics_target'?
BTW I only don't do any sub-selection on the View.
I have attached
> -Original Message-
> From: Shoaib Burq (VPAC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: John A Meinel; Russell Smith; Jeff;
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] two queries and dual cpu (perplexed)
>
>
> OK ... so just
Shoaib Burq (VPAC) wrote:
OK ... so just to clearify... (and pardon my ignorance):
I need to increase the value of 'default_statistics_target' variable and
then run VACUUM ANALYZE, right? If so what should I choose for the
'default_statistics_target'?
BTW I only don't do any sub-selection on the V
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm,
I have asked some Peoples on the List an some one has posted this links
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00101.php
It is quite usefull to read but iam not sure thadt theese Trick is verry
helpfull.
I want to splitt my 1GByte Table into some
Richard,
> I believe these are being worked on at the moment. You might want to
> search the archives of the hackers mailing list to see if the plans will
> suit your needs.
Actually, this is being discussed through the Bizgres project:
www.bizgres.org.
However, I agree that a 1GB table is not
Maybe he needs to spend $7K on performance improvements?
;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:00 PM
To: Richard Huxton
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERF
Tom,
Honestly, you've got me. It was either comment from Tom Lane or Josh
that the os is caching the results (I may not be using the right terms
here), so I thought it the database is dropped and recreated, I would
see less of a skew (or variation) in the results. Someone which to comment?
Stev
I have this query that takes a little over 8 min to run:
select client,max(atime) as atime from usage_access where atime >=
(select atime - '1 hour'::interval from usage_access order by atime
desc limit 1) group by client;
I think it can go a lot faster. Any suggestions on improving this? DB
is 7.
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 00:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > Overall, our formula is inherently conservative of n_distinct. That is, I
> > believe that it is actually computing the *smallest* number of distinct
> > values which would reasonably produce the given sample, rather
Simon,
> Could it be that we have overlooked this simple explanation and that the
> Haas and Stokes equation is actually quite good, but just not being
> applied?
That's probably part of it, but I've tried Haas and Stokes on a pure random
sample and it's still bad, or more specifically overly co
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
> Seq Scan on usage_access (cost=0.00..1183396.40 rows=12713851
> width=116) (actual time=481796.22..481839.43 rows=3343 loops=1)
That's a gross misestimation -- four orders of magnitude off!
Have you considering doing this in two s
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It's not just the scan --- you also have to sort, or something like
> >> that, if you want to count distinct values. I doubt anyone is really
> >
On 4/26/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
> > Seq Scan on usage_access (cost=0.00..1183396.40 rows=12713851
> > width=116) (actual time=481796.22..481839.43 rows=3343 loops=1)
>
> That's a gross misestimation -- f
Hi everybody!
Perhaps the following papers are relevant to the discussion here
(their contact authors have been cc'd):
1. The following proposes effective algorithms for using block-level
sampling for n_distinct estimation:
"Effective use of block-level sampling in statistics estimat
Matthew Nuzum wrote:
I have this query that takes a little over 8 min to run:
select client,max(atime) as atime from usage_access where atime >=
(select atime - '1 hour'::interval from usage_access order by atime
desc limit 1) group by client;
I think it can go a lot faster. Any suggestions on impr
On 4/26/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
> > Seq Scan on usage_access (cost=0.00..1183396.40 rows=12713851
> > width=116) (actual time=481796.22..481839.43 rows=3343 loops=1)
>
> That's a gross misestimation -- f
Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon, Tom:
While it's not possible to get accurate estimates from a fixed size sample, I
think it would be possible from a small but scalable sample: say, 0.1% of all
data pages on large tables, up to the limit of maintenance_work_mem.
Setting up these samples as a % of da
On March 21, 2005 8:07 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On L, 2005-03-19 at 23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, partitioning on the primary key would be Good Enough for 95% or
> > 99% of the real problems out there. I'm not excited about adding a
> > large chunk of complexity to cover another few per
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
Overall, our formula is inherently conservative of n_distinct. That is, I
believe that it is actually computing the *smallest* number of distinct
values which would reasonably produce the given sample, rather than the
*median* one. This is contrary to
Simon Riggs wrote:
The comment
* Every value in the sample appeared more than once. Assume
* the column has just these values.
doesn't seem to apply when using larger samples, as Josh is using.
Looking at Josh's application it does seem likely that when taking a
sample, all site
> -Original Message-
> From: Gurmeet Manku [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: Simon Riggs
> Cc: Tom Lane; josh@agliodbs.com; Greg Stark; Marko Ristola;
> pgsql-perform; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Utkarsh Srivastava;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re:
On 4/26/05, Mohan, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe he needs to spend $7K on performance improvements?
>
> ;-)
>
AAARRRGGG!
I will forever hate the number 7,000 from this day forth!
Seriously, though, I've never seen a thread on any list wander on so
aiml
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim, Kevin,
>
> > > Hrm... I was about to suggest that for timing just the query (and not
> > > output/data transfer time) using explain analyze, but then I remembered
> > > that explain analyze can incur some non-trivial overhead with the timing
> > > calls. Is there a way to
Quoting Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> After some more experimentation, I'm wondering about some sort of
> adaptive algorithm, a bit along the lines suggested by Marko
Ristola, but limited to 2 rounds.
>
> The idea would be that we take a sample (either of fixed size, or
> some sm
30 matches
Mail list logo
