On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 17:35, Alessandro Gagliardi alessan...@path.comwrote:
Well that was a *lot* faster:
HashAggregate (cost=156301.82..156301.83 rows=2 width=26) (actual
time=2692.806..2692.807 rows=2 loops=1)
- Bitmap Heap Scan on blocks (cost=14810.54..155828.95 rows=472871
pgwatch might also be worth taking a look at:
http://www.cybertec.at/en/postgresql_products/pgwatch-cybertec-enterprise-postgresql-monitor
Fernando.-
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Bobby Dewitt bdew...@appriss.com wrote:
EnterpriseDB now has Postgres Enterprise Manager
(
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 07:48, selvi88 selvi@gmail.com wrote:
My requirement is more than 15 thousand queries will run,
It will be 5000 updates and 5000 insert and rest will be select.
What IO system are you running Postgres on? With that kind of writes you
should be really focusing on
-Mensaje original-
De: Tory M Blue
2010/2/25 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 22:12 -0800, Tory M Blue wrote:
shared_buffers = 1500MB
Some people tend to increase this to 2.2GB(32-bit) or 4-6
GB (64 bit),
if needed. Please note that more
-Mensaje original-
De: Scott Marlowe
I think your first choice is right. I use the same basic
setup with 147G 15k5 SAS seagate drives and the pg_xlog / OS
partition is almost never close to the same level of
utilization, according to iostat, as the main 12 disk RAID-10
-Mensaje original-
De: Greg Smith
Fernando Hevia wrote:
I justified my first choice in that WAL writes are
sequentially and OS pretty much are too, so a RAID 1 probably
would hold ground against a 12 disc RAID 10 with random writes.
The problem with this theory
-Mensaje original-
De: Matthew Wakeling [mailto:matt...@flymine.org]
Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010 08:21
Para: Scott Marlowe
CC: Fernando Hevia; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote
-Mensaje original-
De: Pierre Frédéric Caillaud
Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010 15:00
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup
No-one has mentioned SSDs yet ?...
The post is about an already purchased server just
Hi all,
I've just received this new server:
1 x XEON 5520 Quad Core w/ HT
8 GB RAM 1066 MHz
16 x SATA II Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
3ware 9650SE w/ 256MB BBU
It will run an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Postgres 8.4 dedicated server. Its database
will be getting between 100 and 1000 inserts per second (those
-Mensaje original-
De: fka...@googlemail.com
Nevertheless: If your explanation covers all what can be said
about it then replacing the hard disk by a faster one should
increase the performance here (I'll try to check that out).
Moving the pg_xlog directory to the OS drive
-Mensaje original-
De: Keresztury Balázs
hi,
just a small question: is it normal that PostgreSQL 8.4.1
always uses sequential scanning on any table when there is a
condition having the constant current_user? Of course there
is a btree index set on that table, but the DBMS
-Mensaje original-
De: Waldomiro
I´m using PostgreSQL 8.1,
Sorry, log_checkpoints isn't supported till 8.3
and my settings are:
checkpoint_segments=50
checkpoint_timeout=300
checkpoint_warning=30
commit_delay=0
commit_siblings=5
archive_command= cp -i %p/BACKUP/LOGS/%f
-Mensaje original-
De: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] En nombre de Waldomiro
Enviado el: Lunes, 30 de Noviembre de 2009 22:03
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: [PERFORM] Server Freezing
Hi everybody,
...
-Mensaje original-
De: Richard Neill
max_connections = 500 # (change requires restart)
work_mem = 256MB# min 64kB
Not that it has to do with your current problem but this combination could
bog your server if enough clients run
-Mensaje original-
De: Richard Neill
Fernando Hevia wrote:
-Mensaje original-
De: Richard Neill
max_connections = 500 # (change requires restart)
work_mem = 256MB# min 64kB
Not that it has to do
-Mensaje original-
Laszlo Nagy
My question is about the last option. Are there any good RAID
cards that are optimized (or can be optimized) for SSD
drives? Do any of you have experience in using many cheaper
SSD drives? Is it a bad idea?
Thank you,
Laszlo
Never
User Access
Total Number of Users is 500
Maximum number of Concurrent users will be 500 during peak time
Off Peak time the maximum number of concurrent user will be
around 150 to 200.
A connection pooler like pgpool or pgbouncer would considerably reduce the
burden on your system.
I am
-Mensaje original-
De: Shiva Raman
Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Septiembre de 2009 10:55
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: [PERFORM] High CPU load on Postgres Server during
Peak times
Dear all
I am having a problem of high cpu loads in my postgres
server
-Mensaje original-
De: Karl Denninger
Enviado el: Sábado, 05 de Septiembre de 2009 21:19
Para: Alvaro Herrera
CC: Tom Lane; Merlin Moncure; Josh Berkus;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Planner question - bit data types
There was a previous thread and I
-Mensaje original-
De: Paolo Rizzi
Hi all,
recently I came across a question from a customer of mine,
asking me if it would feasible to run PostgreSQL along with
PostGIS on embedded hardware.
They didn't give me complete information, but it should be
some kind of industrial
Incrementing shared_buffers to 1024MB and set effective_cache_size to 6000MB
and test again.
To speed up sort operations, increase work_mem till you notice an
improvement.
Play with those settings with different values.
_
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de -
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de cluster
Enviado el: Sábado, 30 de Agosto de 2008 07:21
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Best hardware/cost tradoff?
We are now leaning towards just buying 4 SAS disks.
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de cluster
I'm about to buy a combined web- and database server. When
(if) the site gets sufficiently popular, we will split the
database out to a separate server.
Our budget is limited, so how
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fernando Hevia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list.
I have a table with over 30 million rows. Performance was dropping
steadily so I moved old data not needed online to an
historic table.
Now the table
Hi list.
I have a table with over 30 million rows. Performance was dropping steadily
so I moved old data not needed online to an historic table. Now the table
has about 14 million rows. I don't need the disk space returned to the OS
but I do need to improve performance. Will a plain vacuum do or
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de dforums
Enviado el: Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008 11:27
Para: Scott Marlowe; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Distant mirroring
Houlala
I got headache !!!
So please
Hi list,
I am building kind of a poor man's database server:
Pentium D 945 (2 x 3 Ghz cores)
4 GB RAM
4 x 160 GB SATA II 7200 rpm (Intel server motherboard has only 4 SATA ports)
Database will be about 30 GB in size initially and growing 10 GB per year.
Data is inserted overnight in two big
Mark Mielke Wrote:
In my experience, software RAID 5 is horrible. Write performance can
decrease below the speed of one disk on its own, and read performance will
not be significantly more than RAID 1+0 as the number of stripes has only
increased from 2 to 3, and if reading while writing, you
Bill Moran wrote:
RAID 10.
I snipped the rest of your message because none of it matters. Never use
RAID 5 on a database system. Ever. There is absolutely NO reason to
every put yourself through that much suffering. If you hate yourself
that much just commit suicide, it's less
David Lang Wrote:
with only four drives the space difference between raid 1+0 and raid 5
isn't that much, but when you do a write you must write to two drives (the
drive holding the data you are changing, and the drive that holds the
parity data for that stripe, possibly needing to read
30 matches
Mail list logo
