Re: [PERFORM] Insert are going slower ...

2004-07-15 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
Hervé Piedvache wrote: Josh, Le mercredi 14 Juillet 2004 18:28, Josh Berkus a écrit : checkpoint_segments = 3 You should probably increase this if you have the disk space. For massive insert operations, I've found it useful to have as much as 128 segments (although this means about 1.5GB disk

Re: [PERFORM] Odd sorting behaviour

2004-07-15 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:52:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: No, it's not missing anything. The number being reported here is the number of rows pulled from the plan node --- but this plan node is on the inside of a merge join, and one of the properties of merge join is that it will do partial

Re: [PERFORM] Swapping in 7.4.3

2004-07-15 Thread Jim Ewert
With pg_autovaccum it's now at 95M swap; averaging 5MB / day increase with same load. Cache slightly increases or decreases according to top. --- On Tue 07/13, Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Matthew T. O'Connor [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:

Re: [PERFORM] vacuum full 100 mins plus?

2004-07-15 Thread Mike Rylander
Tom Lane wrote: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, farpliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Hatcher) wrote: Answered my own question. I gave up the vacuum full after 150 mins. I was able to export to a file, vacuum full the empty table, and reimport

Re: [PERFORM] Swapping in 7.4.3

2004-07-15 Thread Scott Marlowe
This is normal. My personal workstation has been up for 16 days, and it shows 65 megs used for swap. The linux kernel looks for things that haven't been accessed in quite a while and tosses them into swap to free up the memory for other uses. This isn't PostgreSQL's fault, or anything elses.

Re: [PERFORM] Insert are going slower ...

2004-07-15 Thread Josh Berkus
Shridhar, I suggest you check this first. Check the performance tuning guide.. http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php That is a starters. As Josh suggested, increase checkpoint segments if you have disk space. Correspondingly WAL disk space requirements go up as

[PERFORM] hardware raid suggestions

2004-07-15 Thread Brian Hirt
I've been using the adaptec ZCR raid cards in our servers for a while now, mostly small systems with 3 or 6 disks, and we've been very happy with them. However, we're building a new DB machine with 14 U320 15K SCA drives, and we've run into a performance bottlenkeck with the ZCR card where

Re: [PERFORM] Odd sorting behaviour

2004-07-15 Thread Josh Berkus
Steinar, sort_mem is already 16384, which I thought would be plenty -- I tried increasing it to 65536 which made exactly zero difference. :-) Well, then the next step is increasing the statistical sampling on the 3 join columns in that table. Try setting statistics to 500 for each of the 3

Re: [PERFORM] Odd sorting behaviour

2004-07-15 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:11:33AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: sort_mem is already 16384, which I thought would be plenty -- I tried increasing it to 65536 which made exactly zero difference. :-) Well, then the next step is increasing the statistical sampling on the 3 join columns in that

Re: [PERFORM] hardware raid suggestions

2004-07-15 Thread Josh Berkus
Brian, We're looking into getting an Adaptec 2200S or the Megaraid 320 2x which have better processors, and hopefully better performance. We feel that the use of the AIC7930 as the CPU on the ZCR just doesn't cut it and a faster raid controller would work better. Does anyone out there have

Re: [PERFORM] hardware raid suggestions

2004-07-15 Thread Mark Aufflick
Not sure what your hw platform is, but I always used to get fantastic performance from Compaq Smart Array battery backed cards. Note that I haven't bought any recently so HP may have hp invent-ed them... But whatever the brand - if you get a swag of battery backed cache you won't know