Hi @ all,
i have only a little question. Which filesystem is preferred for
postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs (before i used reiserfs). The reason
is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
Is the performance better than reiserfs, is it reliable?
best regards,
Martin
-
Stacy White wrote:
We're in the process of buying another Opteron server to run Postgres, and
based on the suggestions in this list I've asked our IT director to get an
LSI MegaRaid controller rather than one of the Adaptecs.
But when we tried to place our order, our vendor (Penguin Computing)
> >>AFAICT the vacuum is doing what it is supposed to, and the problem has
> >>to be just that it's not being done often enough. Which suggests either
> >>an autovacuum bug or your autovacuum settings aren't aggressive enough.
> >
> > -D -d 1 -v 1000 -V 0.5 -a 1000 -A 0.1 -s 10
> >
> > That is a
Aah ok :)
I've set my values now as follow (2GB RAM):
SHMMAX=`cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal | cut -d: -f 2 | awk '{print
$1*1024/3}'`
echo kernel.shmmax=${SHMMAX} >> /etc/sysctl.conf
SHMALL=`expr ${SHMALL} / 4096 \* \( 4096 / 16 \)`
echo kernel.shmall=${SHMALL} >> /etc/sysctl.conf
sysctl.co
Martin Fandel wrote:
Aah ok :)
I've set my values now as follow (2GB RAM):
SHMMAX=`cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal | cut -d: -f 2 | awk '{print
$1*1024/3}'`
echo kernel.shmmax=${SHMMAX} >> /etc/sysctl.conf
SHMALL=`expr ${SHMALL} / 4096 \* \( 4096 / 16 \)`
echo kernel.shmall=${SHMALL} >> /etc
ok i set it to 524288. ;)
Am Freitag, den 03.06.2005, 21:10 +1200 schrieb Mark Kirkwood:
> Martin Fandel wrote:
> > Aah ok :)
> >
> > I've set my values now as follow (2GB RAM):
> >
> > SHMMAX=`cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal | cut -d: -f 2 | awk '{print
> > $1*1024/3}'`
> > echo kernel.shmma
Martin Fandel wrote:
Hi @ all,
i have only a little question. Which filesystem is preferred for
postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs (before i used reiserfs). The reason
is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
Is the performance better than reiserfs, is it reliable?
I used postgre
>>> I am using PostgreSQL (7.4) with a schema that was generated
>>> automatically (using hibernate). The schema consists of about 650
>>> relations. One particular query (also generated automatically)
>>> consists of left joining approximately 350 tables.
[snip]
>One thought is that I am not s
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I've timed both the EXPLAIN and the EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE operations.
> Both operations took 1m 37s. The analyze output indicates that the query
> execution time was 950ms. This doesn't square with the JDBC prepareStatement
> executing in 36m
We have been using XFS for about 6 months now and it has even tolerated
a controller card crash. So far we have mostly good things to
report about XFS. I benchmarked raw throughputs at various stripe
sizes, and XFS came out on top for us against reiser and ext3. I
also used it because of it's su
* Marc Mamin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've just made a first test wich resulted in a query being 15KB big annd
> containing 63 UNION.
If the data is distinct from each other or you don't mind duplicate
records you might try using 'union all' instead of 'union'. Just a
thought.
Stephe
Hi
i have tested a xfs+LVM installation with the scalix (HP OpenMail)
Mailserver (it's a little time ago). I had at that time some problems
using xfs_freeze. I used a script for freezing the fs and making storing
the snapshots. Sometimes the complete Server hangs (no blinking cursor,
no possible
Anyone following this thread might be interested to know that disabling
the merge and hash joins (as suggested below) resulted in the execution
time dropping from ~90 seconds to ~35 seconds. Disabling GEQO has brought
about a marginal reduction (~1 second, pretty much within the the margin
of
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 00:09:00 -0700,
Bahadur Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Many thanks for this tip !
> But is this good idea to analyse/vacuuming the
> database tables while updates are taking place..
> Since, I update continuously say (100,000 ) times or
> more the same data set.
>
Mindaugas Riauba wrote:
Might e aggressive enough, but might not. I have seen some people run
-V 0.1. Also you probably don't need -A that low. This could an issue
where analyze results in an inaccurate reltuples value which is
preventing autovacuum from doing it's job. Could you please run
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:06:41 +0200
"Martin Fandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i have only a little question. Which filesystem is
preferred for postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs
(before i used reiserfs). The reason
is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
XFS has worked great for us
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've attached the schema and query text, hopefully it will be of some use
> to you. Note that both are taken from the HyperUBL project
> (https://hyperubl.dev.java.net/). Sadly, at this stage I think it's
> time for me to try alternatives to either Hibernate or Postg
I have a small business client that cannot afford high-end/high quality
RAID cards for their next server. That's a seperate argument/issue right
there for me, but what the client wants is what the client wants.
Has anyone ran Postgres with software RAID or LVM on a production box?
What have been y
Steve Poe wrote:
I have a small business client that cannot afford high-end/high quality
RAID cards for their next server. That's a seperate argument/issue right
there for me, but what the client wants is what the client wants.
Has anyone ran Postgres with software RAID or LVM on a production bo
Hi,
I am having a problem with inserting a large amount of data with my libpqxx
program into an initially empty database. It appears to be the EXACT same
problem discussed here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-03/msg00183.php
In fact my situation is nearly identical, with roughly
A pretty awful way is to mangle the sql statement so the other field
logical statements are like so:
select * from mytable where 0+field = 100
Tobias Brox wrote:
Is it any way to attempt to force the planner to use some specific index
while creating the plan? Other than eventually dropping
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 13:22 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> I am using PostgreSQL (7.4) with a schema that was generated
> >>> automatically (using hibernate). The schema consists of about 650
> >>> relations. One particular query (also generated automatically)
> >>> consists of left joini
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, "Morgan" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> transmitted:
> At first I was using straight insert statments, and although they
> were a bit slower than the prepared statments(after the restablished
> connection) they never ran into this problem with the databas
HI all,
I also would like to know if there is a way to force a use of a
specific index for a specific query. I am currently using Postgresql
7.4.6
In my case I have a relatively big table (several millions of records)
that are frequently used to join with other tables (explicit join or
through vie
24 matches
Mail list logo
