Thanks Magnus,
So are we correct to rely on
- 8 being slower than 7.x in general and
- 8 on Win32 being a little faster than 8 on Cygwin?
Will the final release of 8 be faster than the beta?
Thanks,
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Hi,
We are experiencing slow performance on 8 Beta 2 Dev3 on Win32 and are
trying to determine why. Any info is appreciated.
We have a Web Server and a DB server both running Win2KServer with all
service packs and critical updates.
An ASP page on the Web Server hits the DB Server with a simple
process takes 5 minutes! Postgres is a great DB for some,
for our application it was not - you may want to consider other products
that are a bit faster and do not require the vacuuming of stale data.
Original Message:
-
From: vivek singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03
Hi,
in March there was an interesting discussion on the list with the
subject postgres eating CPU on HP9000.
Now I'm the same problem on a Dell dual processor machine.
Anybody know if there was a solution?
Thanks
Piergiorgio
---(end of
Josh Berkus wrote:
in March there was an interesting discussion on the list with the
subject postgres eating CPU on HP9000.
Link, please?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-03/msg00380.php
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Hi all,
Ia a Guy from Germany an a strong Postgres believer!
It is the best OpenSource Database i have ever have bee tasted and i
try to using
it in any Database Environments.
It is exiting to see thadt Verison 8.0 has Tablespaces like ORACLE and DB/2,
but i need Partitioning on a few very
Hi all again,
My next queststion is dedicated to blobs in my Webapplication (using
Tomcat 5 and JDBC
integrated a the J2EE Appserver JBoss).
Filesystems with many Filesystem Objects can slow down the Performance
at opening
and reading Data.
My Question:
Can i speedup my Webapplication if i
I have a database of hundreds of millions of web links (between sites)
in Postgres. For each link, we record the url, the referer, and the
most recent date the link exists. I'm having some serious performance
issues when it comes to writing new data into the database.
One machine is simply not
Hi,
I'm trying to include a custom function in my SQL-queries, which
unfortunately leaves the server hanging...
I basically search through two tables:
* TABLE_MAPPING: lists that 'abc' is mapped to 'def'
id1 | name1 | id2 | name2
-
1 | abc | 2 | def
3 |
I can't speak to the access mode of the SQL statement but it looks
like the index that you are looking for is an index on an expression,
as shown in:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/indexes-expressional.html
You probably want a btree on UPPER(municipo), if that is the primary
query
Hey Everyone,
I am having a bit of trouble with a web host, and was wondering as what
you would class as a high level of traffic to a database (queries per
second) to an average server running postgres in a shared hosting
environment (very modern servers).
Many Thanks in Advance,
Oliver
Hi all,
I'm using Postgresql 8.2.3 on a Windows XP system.
I need to
write and retrieve bytea data from a table.
The problem is that, while
data insertion is quite fast, bytea extraction is very slow.
I'm trying
to store a 250KB image into the bytea field.
A simple select query on a
36-row
Thanks for your reply,
Is it in executing the query (what does
EXPLAIN ANALYSE show)?
Here is the output of explain analyze SELECT *
FROM FILE
Seq Scan on FILE (cost=0.00..1.36 rows=36 width=235)
(actual time=0.023..0.107 rows=36 loops=1)
How are you accessing
the database:
If you look at the actual time it's completing very quickly indeed.
So
- it must be something to do with either:
1. Fetching/formatting
the data
2. Transferring the data to the client.
I do agree.
What
happens if you only select half the rows? Does the time to run the
select halve?
Yes,
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
We need to upgrade a postgres server. I'm not tied to these specific
alternatives, but I'm curious to get feedback on their general
qualities.
SCSI
dual xeon 5120, 8GB ECC
8*73GB SCSI 15k drives (PERC 5/i)
(dell poweredge 2900)
SATA
dual opteron 275, 8GB ECC
24*320GB SATA II 7.2k
On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Geoff Tolley wrote:
I don't think the density difference will be quite as high as you
seem to think: most 320GB SATA drives are going to be 3-4 platters,
the most that a 73GB SCSI is going to have is 2, and more likely 1,
which would make the SCSIs more like 50%
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
If you don't care about such things, it may actually be possible to
build a similar set-up as your SATA-system with 12 or 16 15k rpm
SAS disks or 10k WD Raptor disks. For the sata-solution you can
also consider a 24-port Areca
In a perhaps fitting compromise, I have decide to go with a hybrid
solution:
8*73GB 15k SAS drives hooked up to Adaptec 4800SAS
PLUS
6*150GB SATA II drives hooked up to mobo (for now)
All wrapped in a 16bay 3U server. My reasoning is that the extra SATA
drives are practically free compared
?
supermicro sc836tq-r800
http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/3U/836/SC836TQ-R800V.cfm
Thanks for all the help!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL
Hello all,
I'm doing tests on various Database and in particular I'm running a
comparison between Oracle 10g and Postgres 8.1 on a dedicated server
with 2 processors Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2218 2.6 GHz, 4GB of memory
and Debian GNU / Linux version 2.6.18-5. Performance is very similar up
to 30
I find myself having to do this in Sybase, but it sucks because there's
a race - if there's no row updated then there's no lock and you race
another thread doing the same thing. So you grab a row lock on a
sacrificial row used as a mutex, or just a table lock. Or you just
accept that
Hi,
In my pgsql procedure, i use the function
geometryDiff := difference
(geometry1,geometry2);
but this function is very slow!!!
What can I do to
speed this function?
Exists a special index for it?
Thanks in advance!
Luke
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
Στις Wednesday 09 July 2008 03:47:34 ο/η [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
File sizes of about 3M result in actual logging output of ~ 10Mb.
In this case, the INSERT *needs* 20
In FreeBSD 7.0 by default it does not fsync (except for kernel messages),
unless the path is prefixed by - whereas it syncs.
Sorry, scrap the above sentence.
The correct is to say that FreeBSD 7.0 by default it does not fsync(2) (except
for kernel messages), and even in this case of kernel
Στις Tuesday 08 July 2008 21:34:01 ο/η Tom Lane έγραψε:
Achilleas Mantzios [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Στις Tuesday 08 July 2008 17:35:16 ο/η Tom Lane έγραψε:
Hmm. There's a function in elog.c that breaks log messages into chunks
for syslog. I don't think anyone's ever looked hard at its
26 matches
Mail list logo
