Here is EXPLAIN ANALYZE:
Limit (cost=136568.00..136568.25 rows=100 width=185) (actual
time=1952.174..1952.215 rows=100 loops=1)
- Sort (cost=136568.00..137152.26 rows=233703 width=185) (actual
time=1952.172..1952.188 rows=100 loops=1)
Sort Key: ((ts_rank(pc.textvector,
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark marek.bal...@seznam.cz wrote:
but the result have been worst than before. By the way is there a posibility
to create beeter query with same effect?
I have tried more queries, but this has got best performance yet.
Well, this seems to be the worst part:
Hi,
I tried with the PostgreSQL 9.0.4 + Hot Standby and running the database
from Fusion IO Drive to understand the PG Performance.
While doing so I got the *Query failed ERROR: catalog is missing 1
attribute(s) for relid 172226*. Any idea on this error? Is that combination
PG + HotSB + Fusion
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark marek.bal...@seznam.cz wrote:
but the result have been worst than before. By the way is there a
posibility
to create beeter query with same effect?
I have tried more queries, but this has got best performance yet.
Well, this seems to be the worst
It's probably not a good idea to choose your clustering technology
based on the web interfaces... Running 3 pgpooladmin doesn't seem like
a huge thing.
No - our choice will be made based on the performance of the cluster, the
scalability and finally the amount of work involved in configuration,
Hi,
Our database has gotten rather large and we are running out of disk space.
our disks are 15K rpm SAS disks in RAID 10.
We are going to rent some space on a FibreChannel SAN.
That gives us the opportunity to separate the data and the indexes.
Now i thought it would be best to move the indexes
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the best
performance?
Thanks in advance, Joel
--
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, kernel extensions and usb drivers
On May 3, 2011 11:48:35 am Joel Reymont wrote:
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the
best performance?
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
--
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja,
On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
Trying to, yes.
Let's see ...
EBS volumes seem to vary in speed. Some are
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alan Hodgson ahodg...@simkin.ca wrote:
On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
iowait is a problem on any platform that relies on spinning media, compared
to RAM.
no matter how fast a disk is, and no matter how intelligent the controller
is, you are still dealing with an access speed differential of 10^6 (speed
of disk access compared to memory access).
i have had good
phoronix did some benchmarks of the ec2 machines and they show pretty poor
numbers, especially in the I/O side of things
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=amazon_ec2_round1num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=amazon_ec2_micronum=1
David Lang
On Tue, 3 May
On 5/3/11 11:48 AM, Joel Reymont wrote:
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the
best performance?
Yes. Don't use EC2.
There is no best performance on EC2. There's not even good
performance. Basically, EC2 is the platform for when performance
doesn't
Mark Rostron wrote:
the success/failure of it depends on your typical query activity, the
size of your critical result set, and whether you are able to get
enough RAM to make this work.
Basically, it all comes down to does the working set of data I access
frequently fit in RAM? If it does,
Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
I ran pgbench tests late last year comparing EC2, GoGrid, a 5 year-old
lab server and a new server. Whether I used a stock postgresql.conf
or tweaked, the current 8.4 or 9.0, or varied the EC2 instance size
EC2 was always at the bottom ranging from 409.834 to 693.100
On 2011-05-03 17:52, Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
Our database has gotten rather large and we are running out of disk space.
our disks are 15K rpm SAS disks in RAID 10.
We are going to rent some space on a FibreChannel SAN.
That gives us the opportunity to separate the data and the indexes.
Now i
Thanks for previous reply my friend.
In what manner are explicit joins added to improve performence?
Are there some rules for it?
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Order-of-tables-tp4346077p4369082.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list
are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better
unless the SAN performs worse than the disks?
besides your point that it depends on what our end looks like i mean.
(and what do you mean by the DAS way, sry no native speaker)
cheers,
wbl
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:43 AM,
Robert Klemme-2 wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rishabh Kumar Jain
lt;rishabh.w...@yahoo.com
gt; wrote:
How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement?
To achieve what? Generally there is no requirement for a particular
ordering of relation names in
Robert Klemme-2 wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rishabh Kumar Jain
lt;rishabh.w...@yahoo.com
gt; wrote:
How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement?
To achieve what? Generally there is no requirement for a particular
ordering of relation names in
Heikki Linnakangas-3 wrote:
On 28.04.2011 12:20, Rishabh Kumar Jain wrote:
How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement?
There is no difference in performance, if that's what you mean. (If not,
then pgsql-novice or pgsql-sql mailing list would've be more
On 2011-05-04 07:25, Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better
unless the SAN performs worse than the disks?
It was more, given all the incertainties, that seems like the least
risky.
The SAN might actually be less well performing than what
23 matches
Mail list logo
