Hi,
I´ve configured postgresql to use 1GB of shared buffers but meminfo and "top" are indicanting 0 shared buffers page. Why?
It´s a Linux Redhat 9 box with 4GB RAM and postgresql 7.3.
Thanks in advance!
Reimer
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
On Aug 28, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, can you provide a test case for other people to poke at?
I'l try to put one together as small as I can make it.
The table in question is roughly 22M rows. There are about 8k rows
per timestamp (day granularity).
I see -O2 when building
Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 28, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see -O2 when building PG (CVS tip) on a fully up-to-date 10.4.2
>> machine. Maybe something odd in your environment, like a preset
>> CFLAGS setting?
> 8.0.3 doesn't have any optimization flags
> 8.1beta1 d
Michael
The database is on the same system.
What I am doing is only "VACUUM analyze
conversion_table"
I did the the same thing on a newly created database.
And got the same result. So after "VACUUM analyze"
performance dropped.
Please see this. Runtime changes from "7755.115" to
"14859.291" ms
Tobias wrote:
> Splendid :-) Unfortunately we will not be upgrading for some monthes
> still,
> but anyway I'm happy. This provides yet another good argument for
> upgrading
> sooner. I'm also happy to see such a perfect match:
>
> - A problem that can be reduced from beeing complex and
>pr
Try as I might, I can't seem to get it to work ... table has >9million
rows in it, I've created an index "using btree ( priority ) where priority
< 0;", where the table distribution looks like:
priority | count
--+-
-2 | 138435
-1 | 943250
1 |3416
Rohan,You should note that in Postgres, indexes are not inherited by child tables.Also, it seems difficult to select from a child table whose name you don't know unless you access the parent. And if you are accessing the data via the parent, I'm reasonably certain that you will find that indexes ar
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, ti will if I try 'priority = -2' ... what is teh threshhold for using
> the index? obviously 10% of the records is too high ...
Depends on a lot of factors, but usually somewhere between 1% and 10%.
(The new bitmap index scan code in 8.1 shou
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:07:17AM -0700, asif ali wrote:
> The database is on the same system.
> What I am doing is only "VACUUM analyze
> conversion_table"
>
> I did the the same thing on a newly created database.
> And got the same result. So after "VACUUM analyze"
> performance dropped.
> Ple
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:02PM -0700, tobbe wrote:
> Hi Chris.
>
> Thanks for the answer.
> Sorry that i was a bit unclear.
>
> 1) We update around 20.000 posts per night.
Doesn't seem like a lot at all.
> 2) What i meant was that we suspect that the DBMS called PervasiveSQL
> that we are us
Michael,
The
effective_cache_size, random_page_cost, work_mem
were set to default. (commented).
I have changed the setting of these and now the
performance is better see below.
"HashAggregate (cost=42573.89..42925.52 rows=20093
width=37) (actual time=5273.984..5430.733 rows=55717
loops=1)"
" ->
I´ve configured postgresql to use 1GB of shared buffers but meminfo and
"top" are indicanting 0 shared buffers page. Why?
1GB shared buffers is far too much. Set it back to like 3 buffers
max...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have
I forgot to say that it´s a 12GB database...
Ok, I´ll set shared buffers to 30.000 pages but even so "meminfo" and "top" shouldn´t show some shared pages?
I heard something about that Redhat 9 can´t handle very well RAM higher than 2GB. Is it right?
Thanks in advance!
Reimer
Christopher King
I forgot to say that it´s a 12GB database...
That's actually not that large.
Ok, I´ll set shared buffers to 30.000 pages but even so "meminfo" and
"top" shouldn´t show some shared pages?
Yeah. The reason for not setting buffers so high is because PostgreSQL
cannot efficiently manage huge sh
Carlos Henrique Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I heard something about that Redhat 9 can´t handle very well RAM higher than
> 2GB. Is it right?
RHL 9 is certainly pretty long in the tooth. Why aren't you using a
more recent distro?
regards, tom lane
--
Hi All,
I am running an application, which connects to the postgres
database at initialization time and perform the database operations like
Select/Update.
Database queries are very simple.
On analyzing my application through Quantifier( Performance analyzing
tool), I found the most
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Hemant Pandey wrote:
> So please tell me how can i improve database performance through
> configuration parameters. I had tried to change parameters in
> postgresql.conf file but of no avail.
> Now i am trying to Auto Vacuum, but don't know how to run Auto Vacuum.
The most im
17 matches
Mail list logo