Oh ok. But what is this command doing ? i'm gonna runn it today. I'll keep you
posted. Here is some EXPLAIN ANALYZE from the querys :
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..353722.89 rows=124893 width=16) (actual
time=261158.061..10304193.501 rows=99 loops=1) Join Filter: ((t2."X" >=
(t1.x_min)::double pre
So i tried to run your pgbench command with the postgres user but it's stil
telling me command not found
Rude - Last Territory
Ou écouter ?http://www.deezer.com/fr/music/last-territory/the-last-hope-3617781
(Post-apocalyptic Metal)http://www.deezer.com/fr/music/rude-undertaker
(Pop-Ro
Hi everyone,
I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the
newer R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the
newer E5-2600 series CPU.
At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
The server will be dedicated to Postgres and
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
> At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
...
> The on_hand lookup table
> currently has 3 million rows after 4 years of data.
...
> For both servers I'd have at least 32GB Ram and 4 Hard Drives in raid 10.
For a 9GB datab
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the newer
> R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the newer
> E5-2600 series CPU.
>
> At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8
On 09/27/2012 01:22 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
...
The on_hand lookup table
currently has 3 million rows after 4 years of data.
...
For both servers I'd have at least 32GB Ram a
On 9/27/2012 1:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the
newer R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the
newer E5-2600 series CPU.
For this the best data I've found (excepting actually running tests on
the physical hardwar
On 9/27/2012 1:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
We use a "white box" vendor (ASA Computers), and have been very happy
with the results. They build exactly what I ask for and deliver it in
about a week. They offer on-site service and warranties, but don't
pressure me to buy them. I'm not locked in to
On 09/27/2012 01:47 PM, David Boreham wrote:
On 9/27/2012 1:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
We use a "white box" vendor (ASA Computers), and have been very happy
with the results. They build exactly what I ask for and deliver it in
about a week. They offer on-site service and warranties, but don't
p
On 9/27/2012 1:56 PM, M. D. wrote:
I'm in Belize, so what I'm considering is from ebay, where it's
unlikely that I'll get the warranty. Should I consider some other
brand rather? To build my own or buy custom might be an option too,
but I would not get any warranty.
I don't have any recent ex
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:13:01 PM David Boreham wrote:
> The equivalent Supermicro box looks to be somewhat less expensive :
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101693
>
> When you consider downtime and the cost to ship equipment back to the
> supplier, a warranty
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:13:01 PM David Boreham wrote:
>> The equivalent Supermicro box looks to be somewhat less expensive :
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101693
>>
>> When you consider downtime and the
On 09/27/2012 01:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
I don't think you've supplied enough information for anyone to give
you a meaningful answer. What's your current configuration? Are you
I/O bound, CPU bound, memory limited, or some other problem? You need
to do a specific analysis of the queries that
On 09/27/2012 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
This 100x this. We used to buy our boxes from aberdeeninc.com and got
a 5 year replacement parts warranty included. We spent ~$10k on a
server that was right around $18k from dell for the same numbers and a
3 year warranty.
Whatever you do, go for
On 09/27/2012 02:40 PM, David Boreham wrote:
I think the newer CPU is the clear winner with a specintrate
performance of 589 vs 432.
The comparisons you linked to had 24 absolute threads pitted against 32,
since the newer CPUs have a higher maximum cores per CPU. That said,
you're right that
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
>
> select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
> (select number from account where asset_acct = account_id),
> (select number from account where expense_acct = account_id),
> (select number from account where income_acct = account_id),
> (se
On 09/27/2012 03:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Have you tried re-writing this query first? Is there a reason to have
a bunch of subselects instead of joining the tables? What pg version
are you running btw? A newer version of pg might help too.
Wow, yeah. I was just about to say something abo
On 9/27/2012 2:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Whatever you do, go for the Intel ethernet adaptor option. We've had so many
>headaches with integrated broadcom NICs.:(
Sound advice, but not a get out of jail card unfortunately : we had a
horrible problem with the Intel e1000 driver in RHEL for sever
On 9/27/2012 2:47 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
On 09/27/2012 02:40 PM, David Boreham wrote:
I think the newer CPU is the clear winner with a specintrate
performance of 589 vs 432.
The comparisons you linked to had 24 absolute threads pitted against
32, since the newer CPUs have a higher maximum c
Hello,
from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1 on x5650 is
faster than 9.2 on e2440.
I do not have x5690, but i have not so loaded e2660.
If you can give me a dump and some queries, i can bench them.
Nevertheless x5690 seems more efficient on single threaded workloa
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>>
>> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
>> the X5675 was compared to the E7450. Sandy Bridge isn't quite that much of a
>> jump though, so if you don't need that kind of bleeding-edge, you might be
>> able
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> This 100x this. We used to buy our boxes from aberdeeninc.com and got
>> a 5 year replacement parts warranty included. We spent ~$10k on a
>> server that was right around $18k from dell for t
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 03:04:51 PM David Boreham wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 2:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Whatever you do, go for the Intel ethernet adaptor option. We've had so
> > many>
> > >headaches with integrated broadcom NICs.:(
>
> Sound advice, but not a get out of jail card unfo
On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to
believe. Not only does 9.2 scale *much* better than 9.1, but the E5-2440
i
On 09/27/2012 02:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
(select number from account where asset_acct = account_id),
(select number from account where expense_acct = account_id),
(select number from account
On 9/27/2012 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Careful with AMD, since many (I'm not sure about the latest ones)
cannot saturate the memory bus when running single-threaded. So, great
if you have a high concurrent workload, quite bad if you don't.
Actually we test memory bandwidth with John McCalp
Please don't take responses off list, someone else may have an insight I'd miss.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM, M. D. wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 02:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
>>>
>>> select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
>>> (sel
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>>>
>>> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
>>> the X5675 was compared to the E7450. Sandy Bridge isn't quite that much of a
>>> jump though, so if yo
On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
>
>> from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
>> on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
>
> How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Not
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Conversely, we often got MUCH better parallel performance from our
> quad 12 core opteron servers than I could get on a dual 8 core xeon at
> the time.
Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
48 opteron cores (2.2
On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
48 opteron cores (2.2GHz) or 16 xeon cores at ~2.6GHz. It's been a
few years, I'm not gonna testify to the exact numbers in court.
Same here. We got really good performance on Opte
On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham
>> wrote:
We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
the X5675 was compared to the E7450
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham
>>> wrote:
>
> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
>> 48 opteron cores (2.2GHz) or 16 xeon cores at ~2.6GHz. It's been a
>> few years, I'm not gonna testify to the exact numbe
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>
>> Careful with AMD, since many (I'm not sure about the latest ones)
>> cannot saturate the memory bus when running single-threaded. So, great
>> if you have a high concurrent workload, quite bad
Dear all,
Just letting you know that making the autovacuum policy more aggressive seems
to have fixed the problem.
It's been 4 days now and everything is running smoothly.
Just a reminder, what I changed was :
autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.01
autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.005
making a
36 matches
Mail list logo
