> You probably, more than anything, should look at some kind of
> superfast, external storage array
Yeah, I think that's going to be a given. Low end EMC FibreChannel
boxes can do around 20,000 IOs/sec, which is probably close to good
enough.
You mentioned using multiple RAID controllers as a b
> Currently there's only a few users in the database for testing purposes,
> and most of the time the user lookup's take 2-3 ms (I have syslog'ing of
> queries and duration turned on), but several times per hour the duration
> for one of the queries is 2-3 seconds (1000 times larger), while the
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> I'm running into some performance problems trying to execute simple
> queries.
>
> postgresql version 7.3.3
> .conf params changed from defaults.
> shared_buffers = 64000
> sort_mem = 64000
> fsync = false
> effective_cache_size = 40
>
> ex. query:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:40:05PM -0400, Michael Guerin wrote:
> ex. query: select * from x where id in (select id from y);
>
> There's an index on each table for id. SQL Server takes <1s to return,
> postgresql doesn't return at all, neither does explain analyze.
This particular form of query
"Anders K. Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently there's only a few users in the database for testing purposes,
> and most of the time the user lookup's take 2-3 ms (I have syslog'ing of
> queries and duration turned on), but several times per hour the duration
> for one of the queri
Well, installing gcc 3.3.1 and using -mcpu=v9 didn't help. in fact it made
things worse. Unless someone has something clever I'm just gonna stop
tinkering with it - my goal was met (it is several orders of magnitude
faster than informix ) and the hardware is being replaced in a month or
two.
than
On 27 Aug 2003, matt wrote:
> I'm wondering if the good people out there could perhaps give me some
> pointers on suitable hardware to solve an upcoming performance issue.
> I've never really dealt with these kinds of loads before, so any
> experience you guys have would be invaluable. Apologies
> Don't know how "cheap" they are.
>
> I have an app that does large batch updates. I found that if I dropped
> the indexes, did the updates and recreated the indexes, it was faster
> than doing the updates while the indexes were intact.
Yeah, unfortunately it's not batch work, but real time fina
Hi,
can anyone point me to information regarding this please?
Objective is to find entries that match one (or more) supplied strings in
two tables. The first has about 20.000 entries with 1 varchar field to
check, the other about 40.000 with 5 varchar fields to check. The currently
used sequen
I'm running into some performance problems trying to execute simple queries.
postgresql version 7.3.3
.conf params changed from defaults.
shared_buffers = 64000
sort_mem = 64000
fsync = false
effective_cache_size = 40
ex. query: select * from x where id in (select id from y);
There's an index
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (matt)wrote:
> I'm also looking at renting equipment, or even trying out IBM/HP's
> 'on-demand' offerings.
You're assuming that this is likely to lead to REAL savings, and that
seems unlikely.
During the recent power outage in the NorthEast,
> postgresql version 7.3.3
> .conf params changed from defaults.
> shared_buffers = 64000
> sort_mem = 64000
> fsync = false
> effective_cache_size = 40
>
> ex. query: select * from x where id in (select id from y);
>
> There's an index on each table for id. SQL Server takes <1s to return,
> p
> Are you sure? Have you tested the overall application to see if possibly
> you gain more on insert performance than you lose on select performanc?
Unfortunately dropping any of the indexes results in much worse select
performance that is not remotely clawed back by the improvement in
insert per
http://mail.sth.sze.hu/~hsz/sql/
New, upgraded test results. As we see, the developers works hard, and with
good results. Million thanks and congratulations.
Sorry *BSD-lovers, if you send a new hard drive, our tester can do bsd
tests also. Life is hard.
And last, but not least, thanks for the t
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to get a profile (e.g. gprof output) for a postgres
> backend executing the query on the Sun machine?
>
Heh. Never thought of doing a profile!
I attached the entire gprof output, but here's the top few functions.
I did the test, 1 b
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:35:13AM +0100, matt wrote:
> I need to increase the overall performance by a factor of 10, while at
> the same time the DB size increases by a factor of 50. e.g. 3000
> inserts/updates or 25,000 selects per second, over a 25GB database with
> most used tables of 5,000,0
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
("scott.marlowe") belched out... :-):
> whether you like it or not, you're gonna need heavy iron if you need
> to do this all in one hour once a week.
The other thing worth considering is trying to see if there is a way
of partitioning th
Christopher Browne wrote:
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (matt)wrote:
I'm also looking at renting equipment, or even trying out IBM/HP's
'on-demand' offerings.
You're assuming that this is likely to lead to REAL savings, and that
seems unlikely.
During the recent power out
2003-08-27 ragyogó napján Castle, Lindsay ezt üzente:
> Perhaps some may say Linux isn't the best option for an 8 CPU server but
> this is what I have to work with for reasons we won't get into :-)
This is not true, 2.4 series AFAIK run nicely on these monstrums. If you
want some thrill, try 2.6-
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 20:35, matt wrote:
> I'm wondering if the good people out there could perhaps give me some
> pointers on suitable hardware to solve an upcoming performance issue.
> I've never really dealt with these kinds of loads before, so any
> experience you guys have would be invaluable
Hey all.
I said I was going to do it, and I finally did it.
As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
should be. Take them for what they are and hopefully everyone can
learn a few things from them
matt wrote:
I'm wondering if the good people out there could perhaps give me some
pointers on suitable hardware to solve an upcoming performance issue.
I've never really dealt with these kinds of loads before, so any
experience you guys have would be invaluable. Apologies in advance for
the amoun
After a long battle with technology,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomka Gergely), an earthling,
wrote:
> 2003-08-27 ragyogó napján Castle, Lindsay ezt üzente:
>> Perhaps some may say Linux isn't the best option for an 8 CPU
>> server but this is what I have to work with for reasons we won't
>> get into :-)
>
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, JM wrote:
> need input on parameter values on confs...
>
> our database is getting 1000 transactions/sec on peak periods..
>
> sitting on RH 7.3
> 2.4.7-10smp
> RAM: 1028400
> SWAP: 2040244
1: Upgrade your kernel. 2.4.7 on RH3 was updated to 2.4.18-24 in March,
and the
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll do a profile for hte p2 and send post that in an hour or two
Please redo the linux profile after recompiling postmaster.c with
-DLINUX_PROFILE added (I use "make PROFILE='-pg -DLINUX_PROFILE'"
when building for profile on Linux).
reg
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:26, Bill Moran wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (matt)wrote:
[snip]
> With FreeBSD, you have jails, which allow multiple users to share
> hardware without having to worry about user A looking at user B's
> stuff.
Bill,
Very interesting results. I'd like to command you on your honesty.
Having started out with the intentions of proving that FreeBSD is faster
than Linux only to find that the opposite is true must not have been
rewarding for you. However, these unexpected results serve only to
reinforce the i
Nicely done!
Thanks,
Balazs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomka
Gergely
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tests
http://mail.sth.sze.hu/~hsz/sql/
New, upgraded test results. As we s
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Did you check the error status for the records that weren't entered?
>
> My first guess is that you have some bad data you are trying to insert.
Of course, I checked the error status for every insert, there is
no error. It seems like in my c
2003-08-27 ragyogó napján matt ezt üzente:
> Yeah, I can imagine getting 5% extra from a slim kernel and
> super-optimised PG.
Hm, about 20%, but only for the correctness - 20% not help you also :(
> The FS is ext3, metadata journaling (the default), mounted noatime.
Worst fs under linux :) Try
Someone who has my:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email address has an infected computer, infected with the SoBig.F virus.
I'm getting 200+ infected emails a day from that person(s).
Go to this site and do a free online virus scan. It's safe, and done by
one of the two top virus scanning companies in w
On 26 Aug 2003 at 21:47, Bill Moran wrote:
> Hey all.
>
> I said I was going to do it, and I finally did it.
>
> As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
> more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
> should be. Take them for what they a
On 28 Aug 2003 at 1:07, Anders K. Pedersen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're running a set of Half-Life based game servers that lookup user
> privileges from a central PostgreSQL 7.3.4 database server (I recently
> ported the MySQL code in Adminmod to PostgreSQL to be able to do this).
>
> The data ne
On 27 Aug 2003 at 15:50, Tarhon-Onu Victor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a (big) problem with postgresql when making lots of
> inserts per second. I have a tool that is generating an output of ~2500
> lines per seconds. I write a script in PERL that opens a pipe to that
> tool, reads
2003-08-27 ragyogó napján Bill Moran ezt üzente:
> With FreeBSD, you have jails, which allow multiple users to share
> hardware without having to worry about user A looking at user B's
> stuff. Does such a paradigm exist on any heavy iron? I have no
Of course. All IBM hw can do this, because on
On 27 Aug 2003 at 19:00, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:02:25PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > IIRC in a kernel release note recently, it was commented that IO scheduler is
> > still being worked on and does not perform as much for random seeks, which
> > exaclty what dat
2003-08-27 ragyogó napján Christopher Browne ezt üzente:
> After a long battle with technology,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomka Gergely), an earthling,
> wrote:
> > 2003-08-27 ragyogó napján Castle, Lindsay ezt üzente:
> >> Perhaps some may say Linux isn't the best option for an 8 CPU
> >> server but thi
> Of course, I checked the error status for every insert, there is
> no error. It seems like in my case the postgres server cannot handle so
> much inserts per second some of the lines are not being parsed and data
> inserted into the database.
That sounds extremely unlikely. Postgres is not one
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bill Moran wrote:
> As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
> more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
> should be. Take them for what they are and hopefully everyone can
> learn a few things from them.
What versio
> Are you *sure* about that 3K updates/inserts per second xlates
> to 10,800,000 per hour. That, my friend, is a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT!
Yup, I know!
> During the 1 hour surge, will SELECTs at 10 minutes after the
> hour depend on INSERTs at 5 minutes after the hour?
Yes, they do. It's a
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:17, matt wrote:
> > Are you *sure* about that 3K updates/inserts per second xlates
> > to 10,800,000 per hour. That, my friend, is a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT!
>
> Yup, I know!
>
> > During the 1 hour surge, will SELECTs at 10 minutes after the
> > hour depend on INSER
We have a somewhat similar situation - we're running a fairly constant, but
low priority, background load of about 70 selects and 40 inserts per second
(batched into fairly large transactions), and on top of that we're trying to
run time-sensitive queries for a web site (well two). I should emphasi
On 28 Aug 2003 at 10:02, Russell Garrett wrote:
> The web site queries will jump up one or two orders of magnitude (I have
> seen a normally 100ms query take in excess of 30 seconds) in duration at
> seemingly random points. It's not always when the transactions are
> committing, and it doesn't se
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 20:47, Bill Moran wrote:
> Hey all.
>
> I said I was going to do it, and I finally did it.
>
> As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
> more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
> should be. Take them for what the
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 20:47, Bill Moran wrote:
> Hey all.
>
> I said I was going to do it, and I finally did it.
>
> As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
> more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
> should be. Take them for what the
>> The web site queries will jump up one or two orders of magnitude (I
>> have seen a normally 100ms query take in excess of 30 seconds) in
>> duration at seemingly random points. It's not always when the
>> transactions are committing, and it doesn't seem to be during
>> checkpointing either. The
> Intelligent feedback is welcome.
>
> http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php
Good work. But I can't find information about xfs. Do you plan to add
this one FS in test?
Luf
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Balazs Wellisch")
wrote:
> Very interesting results. I'd like to command you on your honesty.
> Having started out with the intentions of proving that FreeBSD is faster
> than Linux only to find that the opposite is true must not have
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> Intelligent feedback is welcome.
>
That's some good work there, Lou. You'll make sgt for that someday.
But I think the next step, before trying out other filesystems and options
would be concurrency. Run a bunch of these beasts together and see what
happ
Couple of questions:
What was the postgresql.conf configuration used? Default?
How many threads of the script ran? Looks like a single user only.
I assume there was nothing else running at the time (cron, sendmail,
etc. were all off?)
Do you know whether the machines were disk or I/O bound?
Wa
2003-08-28 ragyogó napján Christopher Browne ezt üzente:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Balazs Wellisch")
> wrote:
> > Very interesting results. I'd like to command you on your honesty.
> > Having started out with the intentions of proving that FreeBSD is faster
2003-08-28 ragyogó napján Ludek Finstrle ezt üzente:
> > Intelligent feedback is welcome.
> >
> > http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php
>
> Good work. But I can't find information about xfs. Do you plan to add
> this one FS in test?
http://mail.sth.sze.hu/~hsz/sql/
--
Tomka Gerge
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 23:59, Ron Johnson wrote:
> What a fun exercises. Ok, lets see:
> Postgres 7.3.4
> RH AS 2.1
> 12GB RAM
> motherboard with 64 bit 66MHz PCI slots
> 4 - Xenon 3.0GHz (1MB cache) CPUs
> 8 - 36GB 15K RPM as RAID10 on a 64 bit 66MHz U320 controller
> having 512MB cache (for
On 28 Aug 2003 at 11:05, Chris Bowlby wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 23:59, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > What a fun exercises. Ok, lets see:
> > Postgres 7.3.4
> > RH AS 2.1
> > 12GB RAM
> > motherboard with 64 bit 66MHz PCI slots
> > 4 - Xenon 3.0GHz (1MB cache) CPUs
> > 8 - 36GB 15K RPM as RAID10
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
I'm running into some performance problems trying to execute simple
queries.
postgresql version 7.3.3
.conf params changed from defaults.
shared_buffers = 64000
sort_mem = 64000
fsync = false
effective_cache_size = 40
ex. quer
sm> On 27 Aug 2003, matt wrote:
>> My app is likely to come under some serious load in the next 6 months,
>> but the increase will be broadly predictable, so there is time to throw
>> hardware at the problem.
>>
>> Currently I have a ~1GB DB, with the largest (and most commonly accessed
>> and u
On 28 Aug 2003 at 10:38, Michael Guerin wrote:
> >IN(subquery) is known to run poorly in 7.3.x and earlier. 7.4 is
> >generally much better (for reasonably sized subqueries) but in earlier
> >versions you'll probably want to convert into an EXISTS or join form.
> Something else seems to be going o
> I need to increase the overall performance by a factor of 10, while at
> the same time the DB size increases by a factor of 50. e.g. 3000
> inserts/updates or 25,000 selects per second, over a 25GB database with
> most used tables of 5,000,000 and 1,000,000 rows.
Ok.. I would be surprised if yo
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm running into some performance problems trying to execute simple
> >>queries.
> >>
> >>postgresql version 7.3.3
> >>.conf params changed from defaults.
> >>shared_bu
On 27 Aug 2003, matt wrote:
> > You probably, more than anything, should look at some kind of
> > superfast, external storage array
>
> Yeah, I think that's going to be a given. Low end EMC FibreChannel
> boxes can do around 20,000 IOs/sec, which is probably close to good
> enough.
>
> You men
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:49:25PM +0100, matt wrote:
>
> I'm also looking at renting equipment, or even trying out IBM/HP's
> 'on-demand' offerings.
To handle that kind of load, you're not going to be able to do it
with cheap hardware. Renting may be your answer.
a
--
Andrew Sullivan
> Just how big do you expect your DB to grow? For a 1GB disk-space
> database, I'd probably just splurge for an SSD hooked up either via
> SCSI or FibreChannel. Heck, up to about 5Gb or so it is not that
> expensive (about $25k) and adding another 5Gb should set you back
> probably another $20k.
> Ok.. I would be surprised if you needed much more actual CPU power. I
> suspect they're mostly idle waiting on data -- especially with a Quad
> Xeon (shared memory bus is it not?).
In reality the CPUs get pegged: about 65% PG and 35% system. But I agree that memory
throughput and latency is an
I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
integrity violations ). Would this improve performance or not?
thanks
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, teknokrat wrote:
> I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
> integrity vio
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
> integrity violations ). Would this i
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
I'm running into some performance problems trying to execute simple
queries.
postgresql version 7.3.3
.conf params changed from defaults.
shared_buffe
Rod Taylor wrote:
Currently there's only a few users in the database for testing purposes,
and most of the time the user lookup's take 2-3 ms (I have syslog'ing of
queries and duration turned on), but several times per hour the duration
for one of the queries is 2-3 seconds (1000 times larger),
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 at 1:07, Anders K. Pedersen wrote:
We're running a set of Half-Life based game servers that lookup user
privileges from a central PostgreSQL 7.3.4 database server (I recently
ported the MySQL code in Adminmod to PostgreSQL to be able to do this).
The dat
http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
Adding my voice to the many, thanks for sharing your results Bill. Very
instructive.
--
Best,
Al Hulaton| Sr. Account Engineer | Command Prompt, Inc.
503.222.2783 | [EMAIL
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
integrity violations
> What it still leaves quite open is just what happens when the OS has
> more than one disk drive or CPU to play with. It's not clear what
> happens in such cases, whether FreeBSD would catch up, or be "left
> further in the dust." The traditional "propaganda" has been that
> there are all sorts
Tom Lane wrote:
"Anders K. Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Currently there's only a few users in the database for testing purposes,
and most of the time the user lookup's take 2-3 ms (I have syslog'ing of
queries and duration turned on), but several times per hour the duration
for one of
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 12:37, Matt Clark wrote:
> > Ok.. I would be surprised if you needed much more actual CPU power. I
> > suspect they're mostly idle waiting on data -- especially with a Quad
> > Xeon (shared memory bus is it not?).
>
> In reality the CPUs get pegged: about 65% PG and 35% syste
> With regards to other jobs on the server, there is a MySQL server on it
> as well, which from time to time has some multi-second queries generated
> from a webserver also on this host, but the MySQL is running with nice
> 10 (PostgreSQL isn't nice'd).
Do those MySQL queries hit disk hard?
I'
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> I'm running into some performance problems tryin
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> >>this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> >>related to the same table an
Rod Taylor wrote:
With regards to other jobs on the server, there is a MySQL server on it
as well, which from time to time has some multi-second queries generated
from a webserver also on this host, but the MySQL is running with nice
10 (PostgreSQL isn't nice'd).
Do those MySQL queries hit disk
> The references are all to the same table i.e. they are employee ids, so
> leaving some and not others would make no sense. The table has no
> deletes, small amount of inserts and moderate amount of updates. However
> there are many selects and its their performance I am most concerned with.
F
I need to step in and do 2 things:
First, apologize for posting inaccurate test results.
Second, verify that Sean is absolutely correct. FreeBSD 4.8 was accessing
the drives in PIO mode, which is significantly lousier than DMA, which
RedHat was able to use. As a result, the tests are unreasonab
Rod Taylor wrote:
The references are all to the same table i.e. they are employee ids, so
leaving some and not others would make no sense. The table has no
deletes, small amount of inserts and moderate amount of updates. However
there are many selects and its their performance I am most concerne
> I need to step in and do 2 things:
Thanks for posting that. Let me know if you have any questions while
doing your testing. I've found that using 16K blocks on FreeBSD
results in about an 8% speedup in writes to the database, fwiw.
I'm likely going to make this the default for PostgreSQL on F
I just ran a handful of tests on a 14-disk array on a SCSI hardware
RAID card.
>From some quickie benchmarks using the bonnie++ benchmark, it appears
that the RAID5 across all 14 disks is a bit faster than RAID50 and
noticeably faster than RAID10...
Sample numbers for a 10Gb file (speed in Kbytes
> "SC" == Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I need to step in and do 2 things:
SC> Thanks for posting that. Let me know if you have any questions while
SC> doing your testing. I've found that using 16K blocks on FreeBSD
SC> results in about an 8% speedup in writes to the databas
> "SC" == Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I need to step in and do 2 things:
SC> Thanks for posting that. Let me know if you have any questions while
SC> doing your testing. I've found that using 16K blocks on FreeBSD
SC> results in about an 8% speedup in writes to the databas
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> I just ran a handful of tests on a 14-disk array on a SCSI hardware
> RAID card.
SNIP
> Has anyone else done similar tests of different RAID levels? What
> were your conclusions?
Yes I have. I had a 6 disk array plus 2 disks inside my machine (this wa
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > What it still leaves quite open is just what happens when the OS has
> > more than one disk drive or CPU to play with. It's not clear what
> > happens in such cases, whether FreeBSD would catch up, or be "left
> > further in the dust." The traditio
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Guerin wrote:
I'm running into some performance problems trying to execu
Just to add to the clutch here, also check your bdflush settings (if
you're on linux) or equivalent (if you're not.)
Many times the swapping algo in linux can be quite bursty if you have it
set to move too many pages at a time during cleanup / flush.
---(end of broadca
> >> I need to step in and do 2 things:
> SC> Thanks for posting that. Let me know if you have any questions while
> SC> doing your testing. I've found that using 16K blocks on FreeBSD
> SC> results in about an 8% speedup in writes to the database, fwiw.
>
> ok.. ignore my prior request about ho
Hi,
I have a (big) problem with postgresql when making lots of
inserts per second. I have a tool that is generating an output of ~2500
lines per seconds. I write a script in PERL that opens a pipe to that
tool, reads every line and inserts data.
I tryed both commited an
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 15:50:32 +0300,
Tarhon-Onu Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problems is that only ~15% of the lines are inserted into
> the database. The same script modified to insert the same data in a
> similar table created in a MySQL database inserts 100%.
Did you
> > The problems is that only ~15% of the lines are inserted into
> > the database. The same script modified to insert the same data in a
> > similar table created in a MySQL database inserts 100%.
>
> Did you check the error status for the records that weren't entered?
>
> My first guess is that y
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 13:50, Tarhon-Onu Victor wrote:
>
> shared_buffers = 520
> max_locks_per_transaction = 128
> wal_buffers = 8
> max_fsm_relations = 3
> max_fsm_pages = 482000
> sort_mem = 131072
> vacuum_mem = 131072
> effective_cache_size = 1
> random_page_cost = 2
Slightly off
94 matches
Mail list logo
