[PERFORM] postgres performance tunning

Dear Friends, I have a requirement for running more that 15000 queries per second. Can you please tell what all are the postgres parameters needs to be changed to achieve this. Already I have 17GB RAM and dual core processor and this machine is dedicated for database operation. -

Re: [PERFORM] How to get FK to use new index without restarting the database

On 10-12-16 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Eric Comeau writes: > Is there a way force the db to re-evaluate its execution plan for a FK > without bouncing the DB? > PostgreSQL 8.1.17 You don't need to bounce

[PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

Hi all, I have a table that in the typical case holds two minute sample data for a few thousand sources. Often we need to report on these data for a particular source over a particular time period and we're finding this query tends to get a bit slow. The structure of the table:

Re: [PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

2010/12/17 Royce Ausburn > Hi all, > > I have a table that in the typical case holds two minute sample data for a > few thousand sources. Often we need to report on these data for a > particular source over a particular time period and we're finding this query > tends to get a bit slow. > > The

Re: [PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

2010/12/17 Filip Rembiałkowski : > regarding clustering: it does not help with index bloat. I'm almost sure it does, CLUSTER re-creates all indexes from scratch after copying the tuples. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [PERFORM] postgres performance tunning

Dear Friends, I have a requirement for running more that 15000 queries per second. Can you please tell what all are the postgres parameters needs to be changed to achieve this. Already I have 17GB RAM and dual core processor and this machine is dedicated for database operati

Re: [PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

you are right, I must have missed it... Table "public.u" Column |Type | Modifiers +-+--- id | integer | t | timestamp without time zone | d | text| Ind

Re: [PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

fc=# explain analyse select collection, period, tariff, sum(bytesSent), sum(bytesReceived), sum(packets), max(sample), (starttime / 3600) * 3600 as startchunk from sample_20101001 where starttime between 1287493200 and 1290171599 and collection=128and ip = '10.9.125.207' group by st

Re: [PERFORM] postgres performance tunning

selvi88 wrote: I have a requirement for running more that 15000 queries per second. Can you please tell what all are the postgres parameters needs to be changed to achieve this. Already I have 17GB RAM and dual core processor and this machine is dedicated for database operation.

Re: [PERFORM] Help with bulk read performance

Pierre- I agree with your observation of float <-> text conversion costs, but in this case Dan is talking about storing the raw float data (ie: 4 bytes per float) in a bytea array so there is only the conversion from java float[n] to java byte[4*n] which is not nearly as costly as float <-> t

Re: [PERFORM] postgres performance tunning

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 14:33, selvi88 wrote: >        I have a requirement for running more that 15000 queries per second. > Can you please tell what all are the postgres parameters needs to be changed > to achieve this. You have not told us anything about what sort of queries they are or you're

Re: [PERFORM] Auto-clustering?

Royce Ausburn a écrit : All of the queries on this table are reporting on a single collection, so ideally a collection's data would all be stored in the same part of the disk... or at least clumped together. This can be achieved using "cluster", however as far as I know there's no automated, non

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

So, I am back on this topic again. I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and please let me know that). The boss is pressing the issue because of the cost of MSSQL. What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL? Let's assume that Postgres is runn

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On 12/17/10 9:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote: So, I am back on this topic again. I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and please let me know that). The boss is pressing the issue because of the cost of MSSQL. You need to analyze the total cost of the system. For the price

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote: > Any comparisons in terms of performance would be great.  If not, how can I > quickly truly compare the two systems myself without coding everything to > work for both?  Thoughts? Opinions? I can only offer anecdotal information. If you strictl

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote: > What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL? You should take any generalizations with a grain of salt. I suggest that you do a POC. > Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running > on Win

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Tom Polak wrote: > What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL? > Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running > on Windows 2008 x64, both are on identical hardware running RAID 5 (for > data redundancy/secur

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On 12/17/2010 11:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote: So, I am back on this topic again. I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and please let me know that). The boss is pressing the issue because of the cost of MSSQL. What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare t

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On 12/17/2010 11:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Tom Polak wrote: other direction to get good performance, too. You're not going to compare two major database systems across the board and find that one of them is just twice as fast, across the board. They have d

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

>The real answer here is that anything could be true for your workload, and >asking people on a mailing list to guess is a recipe for disappointment. >You probably need to do some real benchmarking, and PostgreSQL will be >slower at first, and you'll tune it, and it's LIKELY that you'll be able to

Re: [PERFORM] postgres performance tunning

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:33 AM, selvi88 wrote: > > Dear Friends, >        I have a requirement for running more that 15000 queries per second. > Can you please tell what all are the postgres parameters needs to be changed > to achieve this. >        Already I have 17GB RAM and dual core processor

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Tom Polak wrote: > That is what I am really after.  I know that it will be a lot of work, but > at $15,000 for MSSQL server that is a lot of man hours.  Before I invest a > lot of time to do some real benchmarking I need to make sure it would be > worth my time.  

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Craig James wrote: > RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database.  It is S...L...O...W.  It does > NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID > controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for > redundancy a

Re: [PERFORM] Index Bloat - how to tell?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote: > What is "leaf_fragmentation"? How is it defined? I wasn't able to find out > any definition of that number. How is it calculated. I verified that running > reindex makes it 0: Well, according to the code: /*

Re: [PERFORM] Strange optimization - xmin,xmax compression :)

2010/12/6 pasman pasmański : > hello. > > i tested how are distributed values xmin,xmax on pages. > in my tables . typically there are no more than 80 records > on pages. > > maybe its possible to compress xmin & xmax values to > 1 byte/per record (+table of transactions per page)? > its reduce the

Re: [PERFORM] Index Bloat - how to tell?

Robert Haas wrote: This doesn't really match my definition of the word "fragmentation", though... Same here. However, I did run "reindex" on one table and this indicator did drop to 0. I will shoot an email to the author, he's probably smarter than me and will be able to provide a reasonab