Dear Tom,
Thanks for your response. I my test cases, until an analyze have been run,
the queries run fast. After only a have been analyzed, the query plan
changes so that a sequence scan for b and c tables is done, and joining
them with 'a' is done within memory.
So, my tests are here, with
hi, all.
well, i wondered why there is high rate of bo (blocks out). the procedure
is practically read-only during the whole test. although it's not strictly
read-only, because in a certain condition, there might be writing to a
certain table. but that condition can not be met during this test.
Hi,
We have recently switch our product from MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql
9.0.7. We have tuned the searches and indexes so that they are very
close (often better) to what sql2k was giving us. We are noticing some
differences now in the time it takes for the result set to make it back
to the
We just upgraded from 9.0 to 9.1, we're using the same server configuration,
that has been confirmed 3 or 4 times over. Any help would be appreciated. If I
remove the ORDER BY it gets fast again because it goes back to using the
user_id index, if I remove the LIMIT/OFFSET it gets fast again,
On 03/05/2012 03:10, Jan Nielsen wrote:
300GB RAID10 2x15k drive for OS on local storage
*/dev/sda1 RA*4096
*/dev/sda1 FS*ext4
*/dev/sda1 MO*
600GB RAID 10 8x15k drive for $PGDATA on SAN
*IO Scheduler sda*
Martin Grotzke wrote:
we want to see if we can gain better performance with our postgresql
database. In the last year the amount of data growed from ~25G to now
~140G and we're currently developing a new feature that needs to get
data faster from the database. The system is both read and write
Hi Jan,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Jan Nielsen jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is the hardware, firmware, OS, and PG configuration pieces that I'm
settling in on. As was noted, the local storage used for OS is actually two
disks with RAID 10. If anything appears like a mistake or
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Josh Turmel jtur...@gmail.com wrote:
We just upgraded from 9.0 to 9.1, we're using the same server configuration,
that has been confirmed 3 or 4 times over. Any help would be appreciated. If
I remove the ORDER BY it gets fast again because it goes back to using
Hi Laurenz,
On 05/03/2012 09:26 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Martin Grotzke wrote:
we want to see if we can gain better performance with our postgresql
database. In the last year the amount of data growed from ~25G to now
~140G and we're currently developing a new feature that needs to get
data
On 4/30/2012 5:17 PM, Josh Turmel wrote:
We just upgraded from 9.0 to 9.1, we're using the same server
configuration, that has been confirmed 3 or 4 times over. Any help would
be appreciated. If I remove the ORDER BY it gets fast again because it
goes back to using the user_id index, if I
Hi Robert,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Robert Klemme shortcut...@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi Jan,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Jan Nielsen jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com
wrote:
Below is the hardware, firmware, OS, and PG configuration pieces that I'm
settling in on. As was noted, the
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.comwrote:
I like to follow this:
http://www.westnet.com/~**gsmith/content/linux-pdflush.**htmhttp://www.westnet.com/%7Egsmith/content/linux-pdflush.htm
Thanks for the reference, Shaun.
As a note, there are actually new
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Eyal Wilde e...@impactsoft.co.il wrote:
hi, all.
well, i wondered why there is high rate of bo (blocks out). the procedure is
practically read-only during the whole test. although it's not strictly
read-only, because in a certain condition, there might be
Hi John,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:54 AM, John Lister john.lis...@kickstone.co.ukwrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:10, Jan Nielsen wrote:
300GB RAID10 2x15k drive for OS on local storage
*/dev/sda1 RA*4096
*/dev/sda1 FS*
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
rh...@docfocus.ca wrote:
We went to the SQL2k server (On the same hardware) and ran the selects
again. When bringing back on an int32 PG was faster with the fetch and the
row coming back in 1-5 ms and SQL2k coming back in 500-700 ms.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
rh...@docfocus.ca wrote:
Hi,
We have recently switch our product from MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql
9.0.7. We have tuned the searches and indexes so that they are very close
(often better) to what sql2k was giving us. We are noticing
After some testing using wiershark (poor mans profiler) to see what was
going on with the network I found that it was the tools I've been using.
Both Aqua and PGadminIII have a large overhead per column to get the
meta data. MSSQL sends that data upfront so the impact isn't as bad. I'm
not
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
rh...@docfocus.ca wrote:
After some testing using wiershark (poor mans profiler) to see what was
going on with the network I found that it was the tools I've been using.
Both Aqua and PGadminIII have a large overhead per column to get
This is very similar with my problem:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/index-choosing-problem-td5567320.html
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jan Nielsen jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:54 AM, John Lister john.lis...@kickstone.co.uk
wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:10, Jan Nielsen wrote:
300GB RAID10 2x15k drive for OS on local storage
*/dev/sda1 RA*
On 5/3/12 8:46 AM, Craig James cja...@emolecules.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jan Nielsen jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi John,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:54 AM, John Lister
john.lis...@kickstone.co.uk
wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:10, Jan Nielsen wrote:
300GB RAID10 2x15k
On 4/25/12 2:29 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@peak6.com wrote:
On 04/25/2012 02:46 AM, John Lister wrote:
Hi, I'd be grateful if you could share any XFS performance tweaks as I'm
not entirely sure I'm getting the most out of my setup and any
additional guidance would be very helpful.
Ok, I'll
22 matches
Mail list logo
