Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Don't forget your support contract cost, as well as licenses for each
of your servers: development, testing, QA, etc.
Is it really as "cheap" as 5K? I've heard that for any fairly modern
system, it's much more, but that may be wrong.
Sort of -- see:
http://oraclestore
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I happen to have some debugging code enabled for the optimizer, and the
> issue appears to be that the costs of paths using these indexes are
> quite similar, so are quite sensitive to (some) parameter values.
They'll be exactly the same, actually, as lo
Ragnar Hafstað wrote:
it is not rational to have random_page_cost < 1.
I agree, in theory one should never *need* to set it < 1. However in
cases when the optimizers understanding of things is a little off,
compensation may be required to achieve better plans (e.g. encouraging
index scans on data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Oracle is not that expensive - standard one can be got for $149/user
> or $5k/CPU, and for most applications, the features in standard one
> are fine.
Don't forget your support contract cost, as well as licenses for each
of your servers: develo
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:14 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
[snip some explains]
>
> I have random_page_cost = 0.8 in my postgresql.conf. Setting it back to
> the default (4) results in a plan using test_id1.
it is not rational to have random_page_cost < 1.
if you see improvement with such a setti
Litao Wu Wrote:
explain analyze
SELECT module, sum(action_deny)
FROM test
WHERE created >= ('now'::timestamptz - '1
day'::interval) AND customer_id='100'
AND domain='100'
GROUP BY module;
Here is my output for this query:
QUERY PLA
Litao Wu wrote:
Hi All,
Here is my test comparison between Postgres (7.3.2)
optimizer vs Oracle (10g) optimizer.
It seems to me that Postgres optimizer is not smart
enough.
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, 7.4.
7.3.2 is *ancient*. Here's output from 7.4:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] explain analyze
test-# SELEC
Hi All,
Here is my test comparison between Postgres (7.3.2)
optimizer vs Oracle (10g) optimizer.
It seems to me that Postgres optimizer is not smart
enough.
Did I miss anything?
Thanks,
In Postgres:
drop table test;
create table test (
modulecharacter varying(50),
acti
No - I agree - Analysis cache hit rate as a single indicator is
dangerous. You can easily increase cache hit rate by de-optimizing a
good query so it uses more CPU cylces, and therefore has a higher
cache hit rate. All information has to be taken as a whole when
performing optimization on a syste
Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Infact the cache hit ratio that Oracle suggests is the minimum good
> value is 95%. Anything below that is bad news.
Well that seems very workload dependent. No amount of cache is going to be
able to achieve that for a DSS system chugging sequentially
Infact the cache hit ratio that Oracle suggests is the minimum good
value is 95%. Anything below that is bad news. The reason is pretty
obvious - RAM transfer speed is around 3.2G/sec these days, whilst
even the best array isn't going to give more than 400MB/sec, and
that's not even starting to t
> Yes , of course I must try to upgrade PGsql to 7.4 and may be OS to FC 2-3
> too.
> My server products are intel based [mainboard , CPU ,Case , Power supply ,RAID
> Network card] dual Xeon 32 bit 3.0 Ghz which I consulted Thai intel supervisor
> and they told me that increasing the ram for more
> There is no problem with free Linux distros handling > 4 GB of memory. The
> problem is that 32 hardware must make use of some less than efficient
> mechanisms to be able to address the memory.
>
> So, try 7.4 before the memory upgrade. If you still have performance issues,
> try optimising your
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wonder if I would like to increase more RAM from 4 Gb. to 6 Gb. [which I
> hope
> to increase more performance ] and I now I used RH 9 and Pgsql 7.3.2 ON DUAL
> Xeon 3.0 server thay has the limtation of 4 Gb. ram, I should use which OS
> between F
Is that 4GB limit a hardware limitation? If it is, then there is not
much you can do except upgrading the server. If the server is capable
of handling more than 4GB of ram then you can just upgrade the kernel
and enable high memory support (up to 64GB of memory in kernel 2.6.9).
There is no need to
15 matches
Mail list logo
