On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ah ... that's more like a number I can believe something would have
trouble coping with. Did you see a noticeable slowdown with this?
Now that we've seen
On Jun 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 06/30/2014 05:46 PM, Soni M wrote:
Here's what 'perf top' said on streaming replica :
Samples: 26K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 19781
95.97% postgres [.]
On Jun 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Soni M diptat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My guess it's a spinlock, probably xlogctl-info_lck via
RecoveryInProgress(). Unfortunately inline assembler doesn't always seem
to show up
On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-30 11:34:52 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Soni M diptat...@gmail.com wrote:
It is
96.62% postgres [.] StandbyReleaseLocks
as Jeff said. It runs quite long time, more
On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:17 PM, Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com wrote:
already is quite helpful.
What are you doing on that system? Is there anything requiring large
amounts of access exclusive locks on the primary? Possibly large amounts
of temporary relations?
The last time we did
On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com writes:
Sampling pg_locks on the primary shows ~50 locks with ExclusiveLock mode:
mode | count
--+---
AccessExclusiveLock |11
On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Matheus de Oliveira matioli.math...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com wrote:
And if you go fishing in pg_class for any of the oids, you don't find
anything:
That is probably because you are connected
On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-30 12:57:56 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Matheus de Oliveira
matioli.math...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com wrote:
And if you
On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another item of note is the system catalogs are quite bloated:
Would that cause the replica to spin on StandbyReleaseLocks?
AFAIK, no. It's an unsurprising consequence of heavy use of short-lived
temp tables though.
On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com wrote:
So it seems like we have a candidate explanation. I'm a bit surprised
that StandbyReleaseLocks would get this slow if there are only a dozen
AccessExclusiveLocks in place at any one time, though. Perhaps that
was a low point
On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ah ... that's more like a number I can believe something would have
trouble coping with. Did you see a noticeable slowdown with this?
Now that we've seen that number, of course it's possible there was an
even higher peak
. Best performance was with a 3.5 kernel with
the patch removed.
--
Jeff Frost j...@pgexperts.com
CTO, PostgreSQL Experts, Inc.
Phone: 1-888-PG-EXPRT x506
FAX: 415-762-5122
http://www.pgexperts.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make
the stats for the content_id and content_type columns? Also, why
does the index on content_id win out over the compound index on
(content_type, content_id)?
index_blips_on_content_id btree (content_id)
index_blips_on_content_type_and_content_id btree (content_type,
content_id)
--
Jeff
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost j...@frostconsultingllc.com writes:
So, my question is, should changing the stats target on the shape column
affect the stats for the content_id and content_type columns?
It would change the size of the sample for the table, which might
improve
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Huh. That does sound like it's a version-to-version difference.
There's nothing in the CVS log that seems related though. Are you
willing to post your test
of a fix for this sort of thing in 8.3.4's release notes. I
was wondering if this is a known bug in 8.3.3 (and maybe other 8.3.x
versions) and just didn't make it into the release notes of 8.3.4?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com
sufficient if there are other concurrent
transactions; but it's certainly necessary.) Another possibility is
to create the indexes just after data load, before you start updating
the columns they're on.
Thanks Tom!
Any idea why I don't see it on 8.3.4?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL
before the updates seems to make the
planner happy!
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 916-647-6411 FAX: 916-405-4032
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Any idea why I don't see it on 8.3.4?
I think it's more likely some small difference in your test conditions
than any real version-to-version difference. In particular I think
Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have two postgresql servers. One runs 8.3.1, the other 8.3.3. On the 8.3.1
machine, the index scans are being planned extremely low cost:
Index Scan using ix_email_entity_thread on email_entity (cost=0.00..4.59
rows=1
) (actual time=0.028..0.040 rows=4 loops=1)
Index Cond: (email_thread = 375629157)
Total runtime: 0.092 ms
(3 rows)
But 26.36 is still not 4.59 like the other server estimates AND the statistics
target on that column is just the default 10 on the server with the 4.59 cost
estimate.
--
Jeff
that the slow one has been
analyzed several times. In fact, every time adjusted the statistics target
for that column I analyzed, thus the eventually better, but still inaccurate
estimates toward the bottom of the post.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bonnie results any longer.
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bonnie
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 6655 16 + +++ 5755 12 7259 17 + +++ 5550 12
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before analyze it seems to choose Bitmap Heap Scan on episodes
current_episode, but after it chooses Index Scan Backward using
index_episodes_on_publish_on on episodes current_episode.
Have you tried raising the stats
runtime: 183.160 ms
(55 rows)
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeff Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Here are the plans:
It's probably just me but, honestly, I find it terribly frustrating to
try and read a line-wrapped explain-analyze output... I realize it
might not be something you can control in your
)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast
, it might be worthwhile to contact him. Someone
onsite would likely get this taken care of much faster than we can on the
mailing list.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
this with regularity and strongly consider enabling autovacuum.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can
with the commit_delay and commit_siblings parameters in the postgresql.conf.
Also, if you're doing multiple inserts as separate transactions, you should
consider batching them up in one transaction.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com
. Your
workload may vary, but it's definitely worth testing. The system in question
had 1GB BBU.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast
://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-03/msg00104.php
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget
machine that can speak to the postgresql.conf knobs more specifically.
I'd still suggest you upgrade to at least 8.1.8.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Frost
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:24 PM
To: John Allgood
Cc: pgsql
SQL_ASCII to UTF8.
In 8.1 you can do this:
SELECT datname,
pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(datname)) AS size
FROM pg_database;
In 7.4, you'll need to install the dbsize contrib module to get the same info.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http
slower queries would probably be handy.
What do you mean by created from scratch rather than copying over the old
one? How did you put the data in? Did you run analyze after loading it?
Is autovacuum enabled and if so, what are the thresholds?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost
to tune
random_page_cost as well if it's also at the default.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 3/1/07, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote:
Vacuum? Analayze? default_statistics_target? How many shared_buffers?
effective_cache_size? work_mem?
I'm running the autovacuum process on the 8.1 server
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 3/1/07, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote:
Postgresql might be choosing a bad plan because your
effective_cache_size
is
way off (it's the default now right?). Also, what was the block
read/write
and 8.2.3 for the
query in question?
Also, is the hardware the same between 7.4.5 and 8.2.3? If not, what is the
difference?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
cache seemed to
remove the need for a separate WAL disk, but someone elses workload might
still benefit from it.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end
, but of course you could likely go with another filesystem yet and be
even slightly faster as well. :-)
I guess the real moral of the story is that you can probably use one big ext3
with the default config and it won't matter much more than 1-2% if you have a
BBU.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:15:31PM -0800, Jeff Frost wrote:
When benchmarking various options for a new PG server at one of my clients,
I tried ext2 and ext3 (data=writeback) for the WAL and it appeared to be
fastest to have ext2 for the WAL
faster than the other two
options. I didn't test any other filesystems in this go around.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
On 16-12-2006 4:24 Jeff Frost wrote:
We can add more RAM and drives for testing purposes. Can someone suggest
what benchmarks with what settings would be desirable to see how this
system performs. I don't believe I've seen any postgres
benchmarks with what settings would be desirable to see how this system
performs. I don't believe I've seen any postgres benchmarks done on a quad
xeon yet.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649
the 6 disk RAID5 numbers in the archives that were run with
bonnie++1.03. Have you run the RAID10 tests since? Did you settle on 6 disk
RAID5 or 2xRAID1 + 4XRAID10?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908
but only pairs
after that.
A valid question. Does the caching raid controller negate the desire to
separate pg_xlog from PGDATA?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
intensive, but occassionally has large burts of write activity due to new user
signups generated by the marketing engine.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
BBU cache can
you put in it? Oh, does it use the good ole megaraid_mbox driver as well?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast
?
Currently, I'm looking at Penguin, HP and Sun (though Sun's store isn't
working for me at the moment). Maybe I just need to order a Penguin and then
buy the controller separately, but was hoping to get support from a single
entity.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost
?
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Neil Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High CPU Usage - PostgreSQL 7.3
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Neil Hepworth wrote:
I am using version
/07/06, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Neil Hepworth wrote:
I am using version PostgreSQL 7.3.10 (RPM:
postgresql73-rhel21-7.3.10-2). Unfortunately vacuumdb -a -v does not
give the FSM info at the end (need a newer version of postgres for
that). Running the same
: 505142
MAIN LOOP TOTAL generateStatistics: 515611
Thanks again,
Neil
On 11/07/06, Jeff Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Neil Hepworth wrote:
I should also explain that I run through these queries
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Jeff Frost wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Neil Hepworth wrote:
You might also want to turn on autovacuum and see if that helps.
What's your disk subsystem like? In fact, what's the entire DB server
hardware like?
By the way, how big does the temp table get? If it's
of tables (can be several
thousand), can that cause performance issues?
Thanks,
Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED
to update the planner statistics, otherwise
things might slowly grind to a halt. Also, you should probably consider
setting up autovacuum and upgrading to 8.0 or 8.1 for better performance
overall.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http
,
Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
http://www.clickspace.com
On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Jeff Frost wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
Hi,
We had
As numbers from lmdd are seen on this frequently.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our
summarize and post the results back.
Thanks for any input.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched
tests
(data memory); and web prefs test (active data RAM)
What specific benchmarks should be run, and what other things should be
tested? Where should I go for assistance on tuning each database, evaluating
the benchmark results, and re-tuning them?
---
Jeff Frost, Owner
[EMAIL PROTECTED
spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX
What's the current status of how much faster the Opteron is compared to the
Xeons? I know the Opterons used to be close to 2x faster, but is that still
the case? I understand much work has been done to reduce the contect
switching storms on the Xeon architecture, is this correct?
--
Jeff
/
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
=2163p=2
It's a little old, as it's listing an Opteron 150 vs 3.6 Xeon, but it does
show that the opteron comes in almost twice as fast as the Xeon doing
Postgres.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types of loads), but the
reason Opterons rock for database applications is their insanely good memory
bandwidth and latency that scales much better than the Xeon. Opterons also
have a ccNUMA-esque
for data
c) 1xRAID10 for OS/xlong/data
d) 1xRAID1 for OS, 1xRAID10 for data
e) .
I was initially leaning towards b, but after talking to Josh a bit, I suspect
that with only 4 disks the raid5 might be a performance detriment vs 3 raid 1s
or some sort of split raid10 setup.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner
is the performance of
gigE good enough to allow postgres to perform under load with an NFS mounted
DATA dir? Are there other problems I haven't thought about? Any input would
be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Frost, Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frost Consulting, LLC http
69 matches
Mail list logo
