I assume red is the postgresql. AS you add connections, Mysql always dies.
On 5/20/07, PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I felt the world needed a new benchmark ;)
So : Forum style benchmark with simulation of many users posting
and
viewing forums and topics on a PHP website.
In reading what you are describing, don't you think PG 9 goes a long way to
helping you out?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 02:25 AM, Kyriacos Kyriacou wrote:
>
> The
>> result is to have huge fragmentation on table space, unnecessary updates
>> in all aff
I have to concur. Sql is written specifially and only for Windows. It is
optimized for windows. Postgreal is writeen for just about everything
trying to use common code so there isn't much optimization because it has to
be optimized based on the OS that is running it. Check out your config and
s
I am wondering why anyone would do that? Too much overhead and no reliable
enough.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> I was asked about performance of PostgreSQL on NetApp, the protocol should
> be NFSv3. Has anybody tried it? The database in question is a DW type, a
> bunc
Josh what about the rest of your system? What operating system? Your
hardware setup. Drives? Raids? What indices do you have setup for
these queries? There are other reasons that could cause bad queries
performance.
On Jan 22, 2008 11:11 PM, Joshua Fielek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey fol
I am going to embarkon building a music library using apache,
postgresql and php. What is the best way to store the music files?
Which file type should I use?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Peter Koczan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am going to embarkon building a music library using apache,
> > > postgresql and php. What is the best way to store the music files?
> >
> > Your options are either to use a BLOB within the database or to store
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Craig Ringer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > I am going to embarkon building a music library using apache,
> > postgresql and php. What is the best way to store the music files?
>
> Your options are either to use a BLO
Al I have looked at this before and I am not sure the effort is worth all
the thought about it. Let your explain tell you which is better. I read
this link a year ago.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/227037/can-i-get-better-performance-using-a-join-or-using-exists
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:27
Hi pgsql
http://activebillion.com/bring.php?fzuvceubqu3101hcvfvcq
Rich
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
ance of the second
query (aside from changing the join order manually)?
select version();
version
--
PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.0.2 20050821
(prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-6)
Thanks
--
- Rich Doughty
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Tom Lane wrote:
Rich Doughty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EXPLAIN SELECT *
FROM
tokens.ta_tokens t LEFT JOIN
tokens.ta_tokenhist h1 ON t.token_id = h1.token_id LEFT JOIN
tokens.ta_tokenhist h2 ON t.token_id = h2.token_id
WHERE
h1.histdate = 'now';
Tom Lane wrote:
Rich Doughty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The reason these are different is that the second case constrains only
the last-to-be-joined table, so the full cartesian product of t and h1
has to be formed. If this wasn't what you had in mind, you might
where
((sarreport_id)::integer = 9). it thinks there are 53430 when in fact
there are only 7 (despite a vacuum and analyse).
Can anyone give me any suggestions? are the index stats the cause of
my problem, or is it the rewrite of the query?
Cheers
Version: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.0.2
20050821 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-6)
--
- Rich Doughty
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Tom Lane wrote:
Rich Doughty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
However, the following query (which i believe should be equivalent)
SELECT *
FROM
tokens.ta_tokenhist h INNER JOIN
tokens.ta_tokens t ON h.token_id = t.token_id LEFT JOIN
tokens.ta_tokenhist
what will perform better; a view that filters,
manipulates, and orders the data from the first view or a view that
performs all the necessary calculations on the original tables?
from personal experience, if the inner views contain outer joins performance
isn't that great.
--
- Rich Do
I have a table similar to this:
CREATE TABLE event_resources (
event_resource_id serial NOT NULL,
event_id integer NOT NULL,
resource_id integer NOT NULL,
start_date timestamptz NOT NULL,
end_date timestamptz NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT event_resources_pkey PRIMARY KEY (event
What are your table sizes? What are your queries like? (Mostly read,
mostly write?)
Can you post the "analyze" output for some of the slow queries?
The three things that stand out for me is your disk configuration (RAID
5 is not ideal for databases,
you really want RAID 1 or 1+0) and also tha
Craig,
What version of postgres are you using? I just tested this on PG 8.1.2
and was unable to reproduce these results. I wrote a simple function
that returns the same text passed to it, after sleeping for 1 second.
I use it in a where clause, like your example below, and regardless of
the numb
Dave,
Is it me or are the two examples you attached returning different row
counts?
That means either the source data is different, or your queries are.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
Dutcher
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:3
I'm using 8.2 and using order by & limit is still faster than MAX()
even though MAX() now seems to rewrite to an almost identical plan
internally.
Count(*) still seems to use a full table scan rather than an index scan.
Using one of our tables, MySQL/Oracle/MS-SQL all return instantly while
PG t
_items
(cost=0.00..7986.82 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.009..0.009
rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.027 ms
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:48 PM
To: Adam Rich
Cc: 'Craig A. James'; 'Guy Rouillier&#
otal runtime: 0.112 ms
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:10 PM
To: Adam Rich
Cc: 'Craig A. James'; 'Guy Rouillier'; 'PostgreSQL Performance'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hi
That query looks strange to me (a group by without an aggregate). See
if this is
any faster:
SELECT DISTINCT DATE(inserted) FROM Messages
I won't hold my breath though, I don't think there's any way around the
full table scan
in Postgres, because the index does not contain enough information a
Each partition can have its own disk, without using subpartitions.
CREATE TABLE th (id INT, name VARCHAR(30), adate DATE)
PARTITION BY LIST(YEAR(adate))
(
PARTITION p1999 VALUES IN (1995, 1999, 2003)
DATA DIRECTORY = '/var/appdata/95/data'
INDEX DIRECTORY = '/var/appdata/95/idx',
PART
Did anybody get a chance to look at this? Is it expected behavior?
Everyone seemed so incredulous, I hoped maybe this exposed a bug
that would be fixed in a near release.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Rich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:53 PM
To: 'Jos
Doesn't sound like you want postgres at all Try mysql.
-Original Message-
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: 1/17/2007 2:41 PM
Subject: [PERFORM] Configuration Advice
Hey there;
I've been lurking on this list awhile, and I've been working
ECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Adam Rich
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Configuration Advice
Adam Rich wrote:
> Doesn't sound like you want postgres at all Try mysql.
Could you explain your reason for suggesting mysql
If I'm reading this correctly, 89% of the query time is spent
doing an index scan of earth_coords_idx. Scanning pets is only
taking 6% of the total time.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Stosberg
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:
Here's what I do...
1) Install postgresql-libs from the RHEL source
2) Install compat-postgresql-libs from postgresql.org (install, not
upgrade, use rpm -hiv) use force if necessary
3) Install postgresq-libs from postgresql.org (again, install, not
upgrade, use rpm-hiv) use force if necessary
available that modify this behavior? Are there
commercial implementations of PG JDBC that don't have this problem?
(Shame on me, but I have to ask. :)
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Rich Cullingford
[
7;t figure out a correlated subquery (or GROUP BY arrangement or
anything else) that will cycle through the names. I vaguely remember
that these kinds or queries are hard to do in standard SQL, but I was
hoping that PG, with its extensions...
Thanks, Rich Cullingford
Rich Cullingford wrote:
All,
This is a straight SQL question, maybe not appropriate for a performance
list, but...
I have a simple stock holdings setup:
=> select * from t1;
nam |co | num
-+---+--
joe | ibm | 600
abe | ibm | 1500
joe | cisco | 1
33 matches
Mail list logo
