Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:06:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: function difference(geometry,geometry) is SLOW!
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
In my pgsql procedure, i use the function
geometryDiff := difference
Hi,
Note: I have already vacumm full. It does not solve the problem.
I have a postgres 8.1 database. In the last days I have half traffic
than 4 weeks ago, and resources usage is twice. The resource monitor
graphs also shows hight peaks (usually there is not peaks)
The performarce is getting
Fredrik Bertilsson wrote:
Hi,
we are using Postgres on both Solaris servers and Linux servers, and
Postgres are much slower on Solaris servers. We have tested with
different versions of Solaris and Postgres, but the fact remains:
Postgres seems to be much faster on Linux server. Does anybody
Hi,
with that setup you should vacuum aggressivley.
I'd send a vacuum statement in a third thread every 15 minutes or so.
The table renaming trick doesn't sound very handy or even
necessary...
Bye,
Chris.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:38:40 -0400
From: Orhan Aglagul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Is there any experience with Postgresql and really huge tables? I'm
talking about terabytes (plural) here in a single table. Obviously the
table will be partitioned, and probably spread among several different
file systems. Any other tricks I should know about?
We have a problem of that
I am running bechmark test in a 50 GB postgresql database.
I have the postgresql.conf with all parameters by default.
In this configuration the database is very, very slow.
Could you please tell which is the best configuration?
My system:
Pentium D 3.0Ghz
RAM: 1GB
HD: 150GB SATA
We
Vacuum.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/maintenance.html#AUTOVACUUM
And also please suggest other steps that i need to
improve the performance .
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList
Bye,
Chris.
--
Chris Mair
http://www.1006.org
using. Diagnosing your
problem might depend on which OS you use...
Finally, explain what you mean by the age of template0 is
increasing very rapidly, you mean the size is increasing?
Bye,
Chris.
--
Chris Mair
http://www.1006.org
---(end of broadcast
Hi,
I find this very helpful:
Lowering the priority of a PostgreSQL query
http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=11
Now I was wondering whether one could have a
SELECT pg_setpriority(10);
executed automatically each time a certain user
connects (not necessarily using psql)?
Any ideas if and
I find this very helpful:
Lowering the priority of a PostgreSQL query
http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=11
That guy doesn't actually have the foggiest idea what he's doing.
The reason there is no built-in capability to do that is that it *does
not work well*. Search the list
Could you give us some more infos about the box' performance while you
run the PG benchmark? A few minutes output of vmstat 10 maybe? What
does top say?
Here, an extract from the vmstat 3 during the test, you can see that
my problem is probably a very high disk usage (write and read).
Chris,
Just to make sure the x4100 config is similar to your Linux system, can
you verify the default setting for disk write cache and make sure they
are both enabled or disabled. Here's how to check in Solaris.
As root, run format -e - pick a disk - cache - write_cache - display
Ok, so I did a few runs for each of the sync methods, keeping all the
rest constant and got this:
open_datasync 0.7
fdatasync 4.6
fsync 4.5
fsync_writethrough not supported
open_sync 0.6
in arbitrary units - higher is faster.
Quite impressive!
Yeah - looks good! (is the default open_datasync still?). Might be worth
trying out the fdatasync method too (ISTR this being quite good... again
on Solaris 8, so things might have changed)!
I was just talking to a member of the Solaris-UFS team who recommended that
we
test
Doing what http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jkshah suggests:
wal_sync_method = fsync (unchanged)
wal_buffers = 128 (was 8)
checkpoint_segments = 128 (was 3)
bgwriter_all_percent = 0 (was 0.333)
bgwriter_all_maxpages = 0 (was 5)
and leaving everything else default
appears this didn't make it to the list... resending to the list
directly...
---
Doing what http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jkshah suggests:
wal_sync_method = fsync (unchanged)
wal_buffers = 128 (was 8)
checkpoint_segments = 128 (was 3)
bgwriter_all_percent = 0 (was 0.333)
I've done a few tests.
Remounting the fs where $PGDATA lives with forcedirectio
(together with logging, that is default) did not help
(if not harm...) performance.
Sure - forcedirectio on the entire $PGDATA is a definite loss, you only
want it on $PGDATA/pg_xlog. The usual
Hi,
thanks for all replys.
I've done a few tests.
Remounting the fs where $PGDATA lives with forcedirectio
(together with logging, that is default) did not help
(if not harm...) performance.
Doing what http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jkshah suggests:
wal_sync_method = fsync (unchanged)
Hi,
I've got a somewhat puzzling performance problem here.
I'm trying to do a few tests with PostgreSQL 8.1.3 under Solaris
(an OS I'm sort of a newbie in).
The machine is a X4100 and the OS is Solaris 10 1/06 fresh install
according to manual. It's got two SAS disks in RAID 1, 4GB of RAM.
Now
Additionally, because this company develops hospital information systems,
if someone knows about a medical institute, which uses Postgresql, and
happy, please send me infomation. I only now subscribed to the advocacy
list, and only started to browse the archives.
Hi,
have you seen this case
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:44:36PM +0200, Chris Mair wrote:
Is there a better, faster way to do these inserts?
COPY is generally the fastest way to do bulk inserts (see
PQputCopyData).
Hi,
I've rewritten the testclient now to use COPY, but I'm getting
the exact same results as when doing
Hi,
I have the following test setup:
* PG 8.0.4 on Linux (Centos 4) compiled from source.
* DB schema: essentially one table with a few int columns and
one bytea column that stores blobs of 52000 bytes each, a
primary key on one of the int columns.
* A test client was written in C using
Is there a better, faster way to do these inserts?
COPY is generally the fastest way to do bulk inserts (see
PQputCopyData).
Thanks :)
I'll give that I try and report the results here later.
Bye, Chris.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have
Am I correct in assuming that even though I'm passing my 52000
bytes as a (char *) to PQexecPrepared(), encoding/decoding is
happening (think 0 - \000) somewhere in the transfer?
Are you specifying it as a text or binary parameter? Have you looked to
see if the stored data is what you
When I fire a query to search a debtor id, it took around 5 seconds
to return an answer for a query [...]
Are you sure that time is actually spent in the database engine?
Maybe there are DNS resolving issues or something...
Did you try to execute the queries directly on the server from
the
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 00:19 -0700, Relaxin wrote:
Before I ask, I don't want to start a war.
Can someone here give me an honest opinion of how PostgresSQL (PG) is better
than Firebird on Windows?
A colleague of mine has made some benchmarks using those two:
Hello,
just recently I held a short course on PG.
One course attendant, Robert Dollinger, got
interested in benchmarking single inserts (since
he currently maintains an application that does
exactly that on Firebird and speed is an issue
there).
He came up with a table that I think is
I then re-wrote the page to use a single select query to call all the
information needed by PHP to draw the screen. That managed to shave it
down to 3.5 seconds... but this so far is as fast as I can get the
page to load. Have tried vacuuming and creating indexes but to no
avail. (increasing
28 matches
Mail list logo
