Hi,
I changed fsync to false. It took 8 minutes to restore the full database.
That is 26 times faster than before. :-/ (aprox. 200 tps)
With background writer it took 12 minutes. :-(
The funny thing is, I had a VMWARE emulation on the same Windows mashine,
running Red Hat, with fsync turned on.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Joins, Deletes and Indexes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got 2 tables defined as
Hi, Asatryan,
Asatryan, Anahit schrieb:
I am running postgreSQL 8.0.1 under the Windows 2000. I want to use COPY
FROM STDIN function from Java application, but it doesnt work, it throws:
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Unknown Response Type G error.
Currently, there is no COPY support
Hi,
I changed fsync to false. It took 8 minutes to restore the
full database.
That is 26 times faster than before. :-/ (aprox. 200 tps)
With background writer it took 12 minutes. :-(
That seems reasonable.
The funny thing is, I had a VMWARE emulation on the same
Windows mashine,
You can *never* get above 80 without using write cache,
regardless of
your OS, if you have a single disk.
Why? Even with, say, a 15K RPM disk? Or the ability to
fsync() multiple concurrently-committing transactions at once?
Uh. What I meant was a single *IDE* disk. Sorry. Been too
Luke Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following query plans both result from the very same query run on
different servers. They obviously differ drastically, but I don't why
as one db is a slonied copy of the other with identical postgresql.conf
files.
There's an order-of-magnitude
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 15:26 -0300, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
Is there a real limit for max_connections? Here we've an Oracle server with
up to 1200 simultaneous conections over it!
If you can reduce them by using something like pgpool between PostgreSQL
and the client, you'll save some
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The kernel also starts to play a significant role with a high number of
connections. Some operating systems don't perform as well with a high
number of processes (process handling, scheduling, file handles, etc.).
Right; the main problem with having lots
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:15:52PM -0500, John Allgood wrote:
using custom scripts. Maybe I have given a better explanation of the
application. my biggest concern is how to partition the shared storage
for maximum performance. Is there a real benifit to having more that one
raid5 partition
This some good info. The type of attached storage is a Kingston 14 bay
Fibre Channel Infostation. I have 14 36GB 15,000 RPM drives. I think the
way it is being explained that I should build a mirror with two disk for
the pg_xlog and the striping and mirroring the rest and put all my
databases
John Allgood wrote:
This some good info. The type of attached storage is a Kingston 14 bay
Fibre Channel Infostation. I have 14 36GB 15,000 RPM drives. I think
the way it is being explained that I should build a mirror with two
disk for the pg_xlog and the striping and mirroring the rest and put
Bruno,
For example, 150 active connections on a medium-end
32-bit Linux server will consume significant system resources, and 600 is
about the limit.
That, is, is about the limit for a medium-end 32-bit Linux server.Sorry
if the implication didn't translate well. If you use beefier
12 matches
Mail list logo
