Re: [PERFORM] Query take 101 minutes, help, please

2005-09-07 Thread Alex Hayward
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Meetesh Karia wrote: > PG is creating the union of January, February and March tables first and > that doesn't have an index on it. If you're going to do many queries using > the union of those three tables, you might want to place their contents into > one table and create an

pgsql-performance@postgresql.org

2006-03-20 Thread Alex Hayward
t sure about. It doesn't represent that amount of memory used to cache files on disk, I'm sure of that. The sysctl -d description is 'KVA memory used for bufs', so I suspect that it's the amount of kernel virtual address space mapped to pages in the 'active', '

Re: [PERFORM] Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec

2006-03-21 Thread Alex Hayward
Cache, Wired, Buf and Free - it'll come to more than your physical memory. Active gives an amount of physical memory. Buf gives an amount of kernel-space virtual memory which provide the kernel with a window on to pages in the other categories. In fact, I don't think that 'Buf' re

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500

2006-04-21 Thread Alex Hayward
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Mikael Carneholm wrote: > We're going to get one for evaluation next week (equipped with dual > 2Gbit HBA:s and 2x14 disks, iirc). Anyone with experience from them, > performance wise? We (Seatbooker) use one. It works well enough. Here's a sample bonnie output:

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500

2006-04-24 Thread Alex Hayward
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > If I'm reading the original post correctly, the biggest issue is likely > to be that the 14 disks on each 2Gbit fibre channel will be throttled to > 200Mb/s by the channel , when in fact you could expect (in RAID 10 > arrangement) to get about 7 * 70 Mb/

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500

2006-04-27 Thread Alex Hayward
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Mikael Carneholm wrote: > > > > >> There are two SCSI U320 buses, with seven bays on each. I don't know > > what the overhead of SCSI is, but you're obviously not going to get > > > 490MB/s for each set of seven even if the FC could do it. > > > > You sh

Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL performance issues

2006-08-30 Thread Alex Hayward
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Willo van der Merwe wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On 8/29/06, Willo van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> and it has 743321 rows and a explain analyze select count(*) from > >> property_values; > >> > > > > you have a number of options: > All good ideas and I

Re: [PERFORM] performance problems.

2006-08-30 Thread Alex Hayward
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:10:28AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote: > > effective_cache_size = 27462# `sysctl -n > > vfs.hibufspace` / 8192 (BLKSZ) > > random_page_cost = 2 > > You misunderstand how effective_cache_size is used. It's the *only* > mem

Re: [PERFORM] Performance Bottleneck

2004-08-10 Thread Alex Hayward
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Matt Clark wrote: > > And this is exactly where the pgpool advantage lies. > > Especially with the > > TPC-W, the Apache is serving a mix of PHP (or whatever CGI > > technique is > > used) and static content like images. Since the 200+ Apache > > kids serve > > any of that cont