-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a performance problem using postgresql when the connection is made
via ODBC with a windows machine using the latests ODBC drivers (Windows) and
PostgreSQL 7.3.3 (Linux).
The queries made by my Visual Basic program are very very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A Dimecres 16 Juliol 2003 16:38, Tom Lane va escriure:
Albert Cervera Areny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a performance problem using postgresql when the connection is
made via ODBC with a windows machine using the latests ODBC drivers
Hello,
we have a PostgreSQL for datawarehousing. As we heard of so many
enhancements
for 8.0 and 8.1 versions we dicided to upgrade from 7.4 to 8.1. I must say
that the COPY FROM processes are much faster now from 27 to 17 minutes. Some
queries where slower, but the performance
A Dimarts 27 Desembre 2005 18:13, Michael Fuhr va escriure:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 05:09:28PM +0100, Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
However, now we have a query that is much slower with 8.1 compared to
7.4. The query lasts 7minutes (all the times we try) with 8.1, keeping
CPU usage
A Dimecres 01 Febrer 2006 01:32, Rodrigo Madera va escriure:
I am concerned with performance issues involving the storage of DV on
a database.
I though of some options, which would be the most advised for speed?
1) Pack N frames inside a container and store the container to the db.
2) Store
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
AVISO LEGAL
La presente
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Albert
Cervera Areny
Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2006 12:38
À : pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Objet : Re: [PERFORM] copy and postgresql.conf
Hi William,
which PostgreSQL version are you using? Newer (8.0+) versions have some
by this email.
www.wipro.com
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
AVISO LEGAL
)
real0m4.474s
user0m0.036s
sys 0m0.004s
Any explanation?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
Hi,
after doing the dd tests for a server we have at work I obtained:
Read: 47.20 Mb/s
Write: 39.82 Mb/s
Some days ago read performance was around 20Mb/s due to no readahead in
md0
so I modified it using hdparm. However, it seems to me that being it a RAID1
read speed could be
instead.
Also - you might want to try a 512KB readahead - I've found that is optimal
for RAID1 on some RAID controllers.
- Luke
On 5/30/07 2:35 AM, Albert Cervera Areny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
after doing the dd tests for a server we have at work I obtained:
Read: 47.20 Mb/s
As you suggested with two threads I get 42.39 Mb/s in one and 40.70 Mb/s in
the other one, so that's more than 80Mb/s. That's what I expected with a
single thread, so thanks for the information. It seems I will have to buy
better hard drives if I want increased performance...
A Dimecres 30
A Dimecres 13 Febrer 2008 15:25, Linux Guru va escriure:
I want to create and update two tables in a function such as below, but
using parameters as tablename is not allowed and gives an error. Is there
any way I could achieve this?
You're looking for EXECUTE:
,
dummy.avgmems,dummy.months'
CONTEXT: SQL statement in PL/PgSQL function test near line 9
** Error **
ERROR: syntax error at or near $1
SQL state: 42601
Context: SQL statement in PL/PgSQL function test near line 9
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Albert Cervera Areny [EMAIL
file creation onto the fast array.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
AVISO LEGAL
are null, the select count(*) from
table where field is null can use the index efficiently.
But you'll get a sequential scan with the NOT NULL case which will end up
taking more time. (Seq Scan + Index Scan Seq Scan)
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
seeing. I get better
results (0.29 ms) if I simply index DMID and don't use the partitions.
I see really small times here so probably the overhead that partitioning
imposes isn't worth yet. Maybe with 50M rows it'll help, you could try
feeding those 50M tuples and test again.
--
Albert Cervera
I've got a query similar to this:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
That took 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but this is the part that
made the difference) after a little change the query took ~1 second:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id 158507 and t2.id
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Richard Huxton va escriure:
Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
I've got a query similar to this:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
That took 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but this is the part
that made the difference) after
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Mark Mielke va escriure:
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Richard Huxton va escriure:
Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
I've got a query similar to this:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
That took 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer
second.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
AVISO LEGAL
La
A Dilluns 21 Juliol 2008, Leví Teodoro da Silva va escriure:
Hi Guys,
I am developing a project with PostgreSQL and one guy from project is
familiar with Oracle and did a question for me, but i could not answer, if
someone could help it will be good. =)
The question is :
*
- In oracle he
A Dimecres 23 Juliol 2008, Miernik va escriure:
I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
something like a query sequencer,
23 matches
Mail list logo
