On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:45 -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
I have a small business client that cannot afford high-end/high quality
RAID cards for their next server. That's a seperate argument/issue right
there for me, but what the client wants is what the client wants.
Has anyone ran Postgres with
Previously, we have also tried to use LIMIT 1 instead of DISTINCT, but
the performance was no better:
select PlayerID,AtDate from Player where PlayerID='0' order by
PlayerID desc, AtDate desc LIMIT 1
The DISTINCT query will pull out all the rows and keep only one, so the
one with
If you want something more embedded in your application, you could
consider :
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/
http://sqlite.org/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 20:19, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
We've seen PostgreSQL performance as a dspam database be simply stellar on
some machines with absolutely no tuning to the postgres.conf, and no
statistics target altering.
Wow. That took a phenomenally long time to post. I asked on
Looked like pg_autovacuum is operating as expected. One of the annoying
limitations of pg_autovacuum in current releases is that you can't set
thresholds on a per table basis. It looks like this table might require
an even more aggressive vacuum threshold. Couple of thoughts, are you
sure
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 20:19, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
...
Long-term, whenever we hit the I/O limit again, it looks like we really don't
have much of a solution except to throw more hardware (mainly lots of disks
in RAID0's) at the problem. :( Fortunately, with
PostgreSQL and say to use MySQL if you want reasonable performance.
If you want MySQL performance and reliability with postgres, simply run
it with fsync deactivated ;)
I'd suggest a controller with battery backed up cache to get rid of the 1
commit = 1 seek boundary.
Makes it
real
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:08:23AM -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
I don't know if you can do it, but it would be nice to see this be 1
RAID1 for OS, 1 RAID10 for pg_xlog,
That's probably overkill--it's a relatively small sequential-write
partition with really small writes; I don't see how
At 19:45 05/06/06, PFC wrote:
Previously, we have also tried to use LIMIT 1 instead of DISTINCT, but
the performance was no better:
select PlayerID,AtDate from Player where PlayerID='0' order by
PlayerID desc, AtDate desc LIMIT 1
The DISTINCT query will pull out all the rows and
Re: your JDBC wishes: Consider IBM Cloudscape (now Apache Derby) too,
which has an apache license. It's all pure java and it's easy to get going.
As to MySql vs Postgres: license issues aside, if you have
transactionally complex needs (multi-table updates, etc), PostgreSQL
wins hands down
Hi all,
Thanks for your replies.
I ran a very prelimnary test, and found following results. I feel they are
wierd and I dont know what I am doing wrong !!!
I made a schema with 5 tables. I have a master data table with foreign keys
pointing to other 4 tables. Master data table has around 4
On Monday 06 June 2005 15:08, John A Meinel wrote:
Be very careful in this situation. If any disks in a RAID0 fails, the
entire raid is lost. You *really* want a RAID10. It takes more drives,
but then if anything dies you don't lose everything.
We have redundancy at the machine level using
Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:08:23AM -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
I don't know if you can do it, but it would be nice to see this be 1
RAID1 for OS, 1 RAID10 for pg_xlog,
That's probably overkill--it's a relatively small sequential-write
partition with really small
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:00:08PM -0400, Amit V Shah wrote:
I made a schema with 5 tables. I have a master data table with foreign keys
pointing to other 4 tables. Master data table has around 4 million records.
When I run a select joining it with the baby tables,
postgres - returns
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 12:00 -0400, Amit V Shah wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for your replies.
I ran a very prelimnary test, and found following results. I feel they are
wierd and I dont know what I am doing wrong !!!
I made a schema with 5 tables. I have a master data table with foreign keys
I am all for postgres at this point, however just want to know why I am
getting opposite results !!! Both DBs are on the same machine
Why do you say opposite results ?
Please pardon my ignorance, but from whatever I had heard, mysql was
supposedly always faster than postgres Thats
postgres - returns results in 2.8 seconds
What kind of plan does it do ? seq scan on the big tables and hash join
on the small tables ?
mysql - takes around 16 seconds (This is with myisam ... with
innodb it takes 220 seconds)
I'm not surprised at all.
Try the same
HI!
I have a table that I use for about a month. As the month progresses,
COPYs performed to this table get much much slower than they were at
the beginning, for the same number of rows (about 100,000 and
growing).
I'm essentially doing a delete for a given day, then a COPY as a big
transaction.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Jone C wrote:
When the table is new it's very fast, towards the end of the month
it's taking almost 10 times longer, yet I'm deleting and COPYing in
the same amount of data. Other operations on this table slow down,
too, that were fast before using
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:00:37PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
You might have a problem with index bloat. Could you try REINDEXing the
indexes on the table and see if that makes a difference?
On second thought... Does a VACUUM FULL help? If so, you might want to
increase your FSM
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:52:09AM -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
pg_xlog benefits from being super fast. Because it has to be fully
synced before the rest of the data can be committed. Yes they are small,
but if you can make it fast, you eliminate that overhead. It also
benefits from having it's
[Jeffrey Tenny - Mon at 11:51:22AM -0400]
There are some pitfalls to pgsql though, especially for existing SQL
code using MAX and some other things which can really be blindsided
(performance-wise) by pgsql if you don't use the workarounds.
Yes, I discovered that - select max(num_attr) does
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Amit V Shah) wrote:
I am all for postgres at this point, however just want to know why I am
getting opposite results !!! Both DBs are on the same machine
Why do you say opposite results ?
Please pardon my ignorance, but from whatever I
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate list to post this question to
but i'm starting with this one because it is related to the performance
of Postgresql server. I have a Penguin Computing dual AMD 64 bit
opteron machine with 8 Gigs of memory. In my attempt to increase the
number of
Please pardon my ignorance, but from whatever I had heard, mysql was
supposedly always faster than postgres Thats why I was so surprised
!!
I heard a lot of this too, so much it seems common wisdom that postgres
is slow... well maybe some old version was, but it's getting better at
On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Mark Rinaudo wrote:
I'm questioning the number of semaphores being used. In order for
postgresql to start I had to set the maximum number of semaphores
system
wide to 600. This seems to be an abnormal amount of
semaphores. I'm
curious if this is a bug in
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 08:25:08PM +0300, Tobias Brox wrote:
[Jeffrey Tenny - Mon at 11:51:22AM -0400]
There are some pitfalls to pgsql though, especially for existing SQL
code using MAX and some other things which can really be blindsided
(performance-wise) by pgsql if you don't use the
Christopher Browne wrote:
There is a common use case where MySQL(tm) ...
select * from some_table where id='some primary key value';
If your usage patterns differ from that...
However this is a quite common use-case; and I wonder what the
best practices for postgresql is for applications
On 6/6/2005 2:12 PM, PFC wrote:
Please pardon my ignorance, but from whatever I had heard, mysql was
supposedly always faster than postgres Thats why I was so surprised
!!
I heard a lot of this too, so much it seems common wisdom that postgres
is slow... well maybe some old version
Has anyone ran Postgres with software RAID or LVM on a production box?
What have been your experience?
Yes, we have run for a couple years Pg with software LVM (mirroring)
against two hardware RAID5 arrays. We host a production Sun box that
runs 24/7.
My experience:
* Software RAID (other
I did my own evaluation a few months back, because postgres was not cutting
it for me.
I found that postgres 8.0 (was what I was using at the time, now on 8.0.2)
out performed mysql on a optiplex with 2gig meg of memory. I had postgres
and mysql loaded and would run one server at a time doing
On 06 Jun 2005 12:53:40 -0500, Mark Rinaudo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate list to post this question to
but i'm starting with this one because it is related to the performance
of Postgresql server. I have a Penguin Computing dual AMD 64 bit
opteron machine
Mike Rylander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 06 Jun 2005 12:53:40 -0500, Mark Rinaudo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate list to post this question to
but i'm starting with this one because it is related to the performance
of Postgresql server. I have a Penguin
I'm running the Redhat Version of Postgresql which came pre-installed
with Redhat ES. It's version number is 7.3.10-1. I'm not sure what
options it was compiled with. Is there a way for me to tell? Should i
just compile my own postgresql for this platform?
Thanks
Mark
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at
Mark Rinaudo wrote:
I'm running the Redhat Version of Postgresql which came pre-installed
with Redhat ES. It's version number is 7.3.10-1. I'm not sure what
options it was compiled with. Is there a way for me to tell?
`pg_config --configure` in recent releases.
Should i just compile my own
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(From a Redhat POV, it would probably be a good idea to patch 7.3 to
include the relatively trivial changes needed for decent AMD64
performance,
How embarrassing :-( Will see about fixing it. However, this certainly
won't ship before the next RHEL3
Marty Scholes wrote:
Has anyone ran Postgres with software RAID or LVM on a production box?
What have been your experience?
Yes, we have run for a couple years Pg with software LVM (mirroring)
against two hardware RAID5 arrays. We host a production Sun box that
runs 24/7.
My experience:
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christopher Browne wrote:
There is a common use case where MySQL(tm) ...
select * from some_table where id='some primary key value';
However this is a quite common use-case; and I wonder what the
best practices for postgresql is for applications like that.
38 matches
Mail list logo
