Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
The problem with a system-wide no-WAL setting is it means you can't
trust the system catalogs after a crash. Which means you are forced to
use initdb to recover from any crash, in return for not a lot of savings
(for typical usages where there's not really
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
It must be a setting, not a version.
For instance suppose you have a session table for your website and a
users table.
- Having ACID on the users table is of course a must ;
- for the sessions table you can drop the D
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks
So for us, the WAL and OS and logging on the same data set works well.
Generally, it is
Hi again!
I have finally got my Ubuntu VirtualBox VM running PostgreSQL with PL/Python
and am now looking at performance.
So here's the scenario:
We have a great big table:
cse=# \d nlpg.match_data
Table nlpg.match_data
Column | Type |
Any suggestions on what I can do to speed things up? I presume if I turn
off
Sequential Scan then it might default to Index Scan.. Is there anything
else?
Cheers,
Tom
Well, I doubt turning off the sequential scan will improve the performance
in this case - actually the first case (running
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
It must be a setting, not a version.
For instance suppose you have a session table for your website and a
users table.
- Having ACID on the users
Hi,
at the moment we encounter some performance problems with our database server.
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB)
One disk for the system and WAL etc. and one SW RAID-0 with two disks for
postgresql data. Our
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0200, Janning wrote:
Hi,
at the moment we encounter some performance problems with our database server.
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB)
One disk for the system and WAL
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB)
Those discs are 1.5TB, not 1.5GB.
One disk for the system and WAL etc. and one SW RAID-0 with two disks for
postgresql data. Our database is
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB)
Those discs are 1.5TB, not 1.5GB.
sorry, my fault.
One disk for the system and
thanks for your quick response, kenneth
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:47:34 you wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0200, Janning wrote:
Hi,
at the moment we encounter some performance problems with our database
server.
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.org wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks
So for us, the WAL
As others have already pointed out, your disk performance here is
completely typical of a single pair of drives doing random read/write
activity. So the question you should be asking is how to reduce the
amount of reading and writing needed to run your application. The
suggestions at
What would you recommend to do a quick test for this? (i.e WAL on
internal disk vs WALon the 12 disk raid array )?
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.org wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010,
Dear List,
1. It was found that too many stray queries were getting generated
from rouge users and bots
we controlled using some manual methods.
2. We have made application changes and some significant changes have been done.
3. we use xfs and our controller has BBU , we changed barriers=1
Scott Carey wrote:
v. 8.4.3
I have a table that has several indexes, one of which the table is
clustered on. If I do an ALTER TABLE Foo ADD COLUMN bar integer not
null default -1;
It re-writes the whole table.
All good questions:
* Does it adhere to the CLUSTER property of the table
I'm not clear whether you still have a problem, or whether the
changes you mention solved your issues. I'll comment on potential
issues that leap out at me.
Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
3. we use xfs and our controller has BBU , we changed barriers=1
to barriers=0 as
On Thursday 24 June 2010 15:16:05 Janning wrote:
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 TB)
For each drive, you will be
On 2010-06-24 15:45, Janning Vygen wrote:
On Thursday 24 June 2010 15:16:05 Janning wrote:
On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote:
We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
3 disks Seagate Barracuda 7200.11,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I'm not clear whether you still have a problem, or whether the
changes you mention solved your issues. I'll comment on potential
issues that leap out at me.
It shall require more observation to know if the
i do not remember well but there is a system view that (i think)
guides at what stage the marginal returns of increasing it
starts disappearing , i had set it a few years back.
Sorry the above comment was regarding setting shared_buffers
not effective_cache_size.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
truncated on startup).
Yep. And it's quite possible that this will be adequate for most users.
And it's also possible that the extra CPU which Robert isn't
Excerpts from Rajesh Kumar Mallah's message of jue jun 24 13:25:32 -0400 2010:
What prompted me to post to list is that the server transitioned from
being IO bound to CPU bound and 90% of syscalls being
lseek(XXX, 0, SEEK_END) = YYY
It could be useful to find out what file is being
Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
max_connections = 300
As I've previously mentioned, I would use a connection pool, in
which case this wouldn't need to be that high.
We do use connection pooling provided to mod_perl
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
truncated on startup).
this is similar MySQL's memory tables. Personally, I don't see any
practical sense do same work on
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 21:14 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
truncated on startup).
this is similar MySQL's memory
2010/6/24 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com:
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 21:14 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
truncated
On Jun 24, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com:
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 21:14 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
same contents for all
2010/6/24 A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com:
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 21:14 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
And I'm also planning to implement unlogged
this is similar MySQL's memory tables. Personally, I don't see any
practical sense do same work on PostgreSQL now, when memcached exists.
Thing is, if you only have one table (say, a sessions table) which you
don't want logged, you don't necessarily want to fire up a 2nd software
application
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
this is similar MySQL's memory tables. Personally, I don't see any
practical sense do same work on PostgreSQL now, when memcached exists.
Thing is, if you only have one table (say, a sessions table) which you
don't want logged, you don't necessarily
Can anyone tell me what's going on here? I hope this doesn't mean my system
tables are corrupt...
Thanks,
Craig
select relname, pg_relation_size(relname) from pg_class
where pg_get_userbyid(relowner) = 'emol_warehouse_1'
and relname not like 'pg_%'
order by
Excerpts from Craig James's message of jue jun 24 19:03:00 -0400 2010:
select relname, pg_relation_size(relname) from pg_class
where pg_get_userbyid(relowner) = 'emol_warehouse_1'
and relname not like 'pg_%'
order by pg_relation_size(relname) desc;
ERROR: relation
On 6/24/10 4:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Craig James's message of jue jun 24 19:03:00 -0400 2010:
select relname, pg_relation_size(relname) from pg_class
where pg_get_userbyid(relowner) = 'emol_warehouse_1'
and relname not like 'pg_%'
order by
Excerpts from Craig James's message of jue jun 24 19:24:44 -0400 2010:
On 6/24/10 4:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Craig James's message of jue jun 24 19:03:00 -0400 2010:
select relname, pg_relation_size(relname) from pg_class
where pg_get_userbyid(relowner) =
I'm reviving this question because I never figured it out. To summarize: At random
intervals anywhere from a few times per hour to once or twice a day, we see a huge spike
in CPU load that essentially brings the system to a halt for up to a minute or two.
Previous answers focused on what is
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 17:50 -0700, Craig James wrote:
I'm reviving this question because I never figured it out. To summarize: At
random intervals anywhere from a few times per hour to once or twice a day,
we see a huge spike in CPU load that essentially brings the system to a halt
for up
Craig James wrote:
Now the question has narrowed down to this: what could trigger EVERY
postgres backend to do something at the same time? See the attached
output from top -b, which shows what is happening during one of the
CPU spikes.
By the way: you probably want top -b -c, which will
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Craig James's message of jue jun 24 19:03:00 -0400 2010:
select relname, pg_relation_size(relname) from pg_class
where pg_get_userbyid(relowner) = 'emol_warehouse_1'
and relname
Craig James craig_ja...@emolecules.com writes:
So what is it that will cause every single Postgres backend to come to life
at the same moment, when there's no real load on the server? Maybe if a
backend crashes? Some other problem?
sinval queue overflow comes to mind ... although that
40 matches
Mail list logo
