The problems with giving suggestions about increasing performance is
that one persons increase is another persons decrease.
having said that, there are a few general suggestions :
Set-up some shared memory, about a tenth of your available RAM, and
configure shared_memory and max_clients
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 16:03:17 -0600,
MK Spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The archives of this list provides many ideas for improving performance, but the
problem we are having is gradually degrading performance ending in postgres shutting
down. So it's not a matter of optimizing a
MK Spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... the problem we are having is gradually degrading
performance ending in postgres shutting down.
As someone else commented, that's not an ordinary sort of performance
problem. What exactly happens when the database shuts down?
Hi folks,
Disclaimer: I am relatively new to RDBMSs, so please do not laugh at me
too loudly, you can laugh, just not too loudly and please do not point. :)
I am working on an Automated Installer Testing System for Adobe Systems
and I am doing a DB redesign of the current postgres db:
1. We
[small chuckle]
By George, I think he's got it!
You are on the right track. Have a look at this link on database
normalization for more info:
http://databases.about.com/library/weekly/aa080501a.htm
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 10:42, shane hill wrote:
Hi folks,
Disclaimer: I am relatively new
Shane,
Disclaimer: I am relatively new to RDBMSs, so please do not laugh at me
too loudly, you can laugh, just not too loudly and please do not point. :)
Hey, we all started somewhere. Nobody was born knowing databases. Except
maybe Neil Conway.
I am working on an Automated Installer
Hi all,
I want to use index on the gene_symbol column in my
query and gene_symbol is indexed. but when I use
lower (gene_symbol) like lower('%mif%'), the index
is not used. While when I change to
lower(gene_symbol) = lower('mif'), the index is used
and index scan works, but this is not what I
Hi,
Searches with like or regexes often can't use the index. Think of the index as
a sorted list of your items. It's easy to find an item when you know it
starts with mif so ('mif%' should use the index). But when you use a
'like' that starts with '%' the index is useless and the search needs to
Torsten Schulz wrote:
Hi,
You can see doing select * from pg_stat_activity the
queries that are currently running on your server, and
do a explain analize on it to see which one is the
bottleneck. If you are running the 7.4 you can see on
the log the total ammount for each query.
with this
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In regular text fields containing words, your problem is solvable with full
text indexing (FTI). Unfortunately, FTI is not designed for arbitrary
non-language strings. It could be adapted, but would require a lot of
hacking.
I'm not sure why you say
Dear You all,
(please tell me if this has already been discussed, I was unable to find any
convincing information)
I'm developing a small application, tied to a PG 7.4 beta 5 (i didn't
upgrade). The DB i use is roughly 20 tales each of them containing at most 30
records (I'm still in
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Torsten Schulz wrote:
Hi,
You can see doing select * from pg_stat_activity the
queries that are currently running on your server, and
do a explain analize on it to see which one is the
bottleneck. If you are running the 7.4 you can see on
the log the total ammount for
Tom,
Strictly a WAG ... but what this sounds like to me is disastrously bad
behavior of the spinlock code under heavy contention. We thought we'd
fixed the spinlock code for SMP machines awhile ago, but maybe
hyperthreading opens some new vistas for misbehavior ...
Yeah, I thought of that
Stefan Champailler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So here's my trouble : some DELETE statement take up to 1 minute to
complete (but not always, sometimes it's fast, sometimes it's that
slow). Here's a typical one : DELETE FROM response_bool WHERE
response_id = '125' The response_bool table has no
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are 6 rows in the table (given that size, I assumed that an
index was not necessary).
That's a reasonable assumption.
But if he's updated those rows a few hundred thousand times and never
VACUUMed, he could be having some problems ...
Torsten Schulz wrote:
Chester Kustarz wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Torsten Schulz wrote:
shared_buffers = 5000# 2*max_connections, min 16
that looks pretty small. that would only be 40MBytes (8k/page *
5000pages).
http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
Ok, thats it. I've
16 matches
Mail list logo