It appears that the optimizer only uses indexes for = clause?
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
after vacuum verbose analyze, I still get
explain select * from isppm where item_upc_cd like '06038301234';
QUERY PLAN
---
Seq Scan on isppm (cost=1.00..19684.89 rows=2 width=791)
Doug,
Yes, it does depend on the locale, you can get around this in 7.4 by
building the index with smart operators
Dave
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:38, Doug McNaught wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears that the optimizer only uses indexes for = clause?
The
with
the ServerWorks chipset on those motherboards. If anyone knows a high-end
hardware+linux kernel geek I can corner, I'd appreciate it.
Maybe I should contact OSDL ...
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't
unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
!DSPAM:4082feb7326901956819835!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
!DSPAM:40837183123741526418863!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5
]
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
!DSPAM:40851da1199651145780980!
--
Dave Cramer
cleanly
!DSPAM:408535ce93801252113544!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
?
Dave
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 12:59, Josh Berkus wrote:
Anjan,
Quad 2.0GHz XEON with highest load we have seen on the applications, DB
performing great -
Can you run Tom's test? It takes a particular pattern of data access to
reproduce the issue.
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ
get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
!DSPAM:40866735106778584283649!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe
? Is it exactly the same resource, or two resources that happen to
have test-and-set flags in the same cache line?
On Apr 20, 2004, at 7:41 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
I modified the code in s_lock.c to remove the spins
#define SPINS_PER_DELAY 1
and it doesn't exhibit the behaviour
attached.
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
Index: backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c
===
RCS file: /usr/local/cvs/pgsql-server/src/backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -c -r1.16 s_lock.c
*** backend
the average time it takes to get finished with the shared resource
then this should reduce cs.
Certainly more ideas are required here.
Dave
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 22:35, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
diff -c -r1.16 s_lock.c
*** backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c 8 Aug 2003 21
the CSes by about 40%.
An improvement, but not a magic bullet.
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED
baseline measurement at 100)
250
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
5000
... until you find an optimal level. Then report the results to us!
Some results. The patch mentioned is what Dave Cramer posted to the Performance
list on 4/21.
A Perl script monitored vmstat 1 for 120
23 0
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
one at a time. This would take days of testing
...
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so
!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
!DSPAM:408dcc51235334924183622!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3
:40eefff6170301475214189!
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
.
Is there a way to rewrite the top query to get the same results? I have already talked
to Best Practical,
and subqueries are not easily embraced.
Dave
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your
' and LocalTarget = '17417'
and (LocalBase = main.id or LocalTarget = main.id)
)
)
Those are the only things I can think of to make it work, anyways.
Dave Cramer wrote:
RT uses a query like:
SELECT distinct main.oid,main.* FROM Tickets main
WHERE
(main.EffectiveId = main.id
from Links
where Type = 'MemberOf' and LocalTarget = '17417'
and (LocalBase = main.id or LocalTarget = main.id)
)
)
Those are the only things I can think of to make it work, anyways.
Dave Cramer wrote:
RT uses a query like:
SELECT distinct main.oid,main.* FROM Tickets
on a tmpfs.
-Bill Montgomery
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
www.postgresintl.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: 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
--
Dave Cramer
www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ
)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
Insets / Seconds.
How could we make it faster ?
Inserting 1000 rows via INSERT AS SELECT is much faster.
regards
Michael
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dave Cramer
http
use COPY FROM instead of INSERT ?
And have you tested the performance with fsync on and off.
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan
Actually, the most damning thing in this configuration I had missed earlier
256MB of ram !
Dave
Josh Berkus wrote:
Vivek,
Redhat Linux7.2
RAM: 256MB
postgres: 7.1.3
Um, you do realise that both RH 7.2 and PostgreSQL 7.1 are no longer
supported but their respective communities?
--
Dave
Can someone explain how the free space map deals with alternate database
locations?
Given that the free space map is global, and it is ostensibly managing
free disk space, how does it deal with tuples across disk locations ?
Dave
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ
Scottrade Financial Services
(314) 965-1555 x 1513
Cell: (314) 369-2083
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
with tuples across disk locations ?
Are you talking Tablespaces?
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
% of the queries, but for some reason was broken for non-MySQL databases)
later, and we were down to 3-4 index scans, a few orders of magnitude faster.
:-)
/* Steinar */
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast
what
you would pay for a comparable HP server (and Dell doesn't even offer
Opteron).
You can do the same with Monarch Computers. A 4u quad opteron. You
can also pay a lot more, depends on the configuration. They have a
very nice site for building a system as you want.
--
Dave Cramer
http
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
?
I presume you are vacuuming on a regular basis?
Yes , vacuumdb daily.
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
| 64
effective_cache_size | 393216
Thanks!
Pallav
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast
to find out which queries are
slow.
Dave
Amrit
Thailand
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ
William Yu wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
William Yu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will try to reduce shared buffer to 1536 [1.87 Mb].
1536 is probaby too low. I've tested a bunch of different settings
on my 8GB Opteron server and 10K seems to be the best setting.
Be careful here, he
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: 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
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ
kernel when RedHat finalizes their release.
I am not familular with many of the logging features of postgres just
the outputing the output to a file instead of /dev/null.
Benjamin
On Jan 6, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Ben
Well, we need more information
pg version, hardware, memory, etc
you
to the 2.6 kernel when RedHat finalizes their
release.
I am not familular with many of the logging features of postgres
just the outputing the output to a file instead of /dev/null.
Benjamin
On Jan 6, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Ben
Well, we need more information
pg version, hardware
that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs
of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose
)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go
process, even if it costs you the round trip.
Dave
Gary Doades wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
I'm curious, why do you think that's serious ? What do you really
expect to do in the stored procedure ? Anything of consequence will
seriously degrade performance if you select it in say a million rows.
I'm
with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
your desire to choose an index scan if
your
joining column's datatypes do not match
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http
like Google do to
get an incredible database in size and so quick access ?
regards,
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
...
Am I clear ?
Regards,
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
This idea won't work with postgresql only one instance can operate on a
datastore at a time.
Dave
Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
do it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
under different conditions, so it might not
mean much. No offense intended, but I remember doesn't carry as
much weight as a documented example.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
--
Dave Cramer
http
Junaili,
I'd suggest you don't buy a dell. The aren't particularly good performers.
Dave
Junaili Lie wrote:
Hi guys,
We are in the process of buying a new dell server.
Here is what we need to be able to do:
- we need to be able to do queries on tables that has 10-20 millions
of records (around
0m0.510s
(the file was not in the cache)
= about 52 MB/s (reiser3.6)
So, you have a problem with your hardware...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Dave Cramer
http
Yeah, 35Mb per sec is slow for a raid controller, the 3ware mirrored is
about 50Mb/sec, and striped is about 100
Dave
PFC wrote:
With hardware tuning, I am sure we can do better than 35Mb per sec. Also
WTF ?
My Laptop does 19 MB/s (reading 10 KB files, reiser4) !
A recent desktop
the archives for xeon sooner or later you will bump
into something relevant.
--
Kind Regards,
Keith
---(end of
broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Dave Cramer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.postgresintl.com
ICQ
Barry,
One way to do this is to turn logging on for calls over a certain
duration
log_duration in the config file. This will only log calls over n
milliseconds.
There's a tool called iron eye SQL that monitors JDBC calls.
http://www.irongrid.com/
unfortunately I am getting DNS errors
The difference between the 7.4 driver and the 8.0.3 driver is the
8.0.3 driver is using server side prepared statements and binding the
parameter to the type in setXXX(n,val).
The 7.4 driver just replaces the ? with the value and doesn't use
server side prepared statements.
Dave
On
On 12-Sep-05, at 9:22 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 12.09.2005, at 14:38 Uhr, Dave Cramer wrote:
The difference between the 7.4 driver and the 8.0.3 driver is the
8.0.3 driver is using server side prepared statements and binding
the parameter to the type in setXXX(n,val).
Would
It's added, just use the old protocol .
Here are the connection parameters
http://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html#connection-
parameters
Dave
On 12-Sep-05, at 9:26 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The difference between
I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering
postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would
software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ?
Dave
On 25-Sep-05, at 6:17 AM, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
I would consider Software Raid
PFC
Joost,
I've got experience with these controllers and which version do you
have. I'd expect to see higher than 50MB/s although I've never tried
RAID 5
I routinely see closer to 100MB/s with RAID 1+0 on their 9000 series
I would also suggest that shared buffers should be higher than 7500,
Luke,Have you tried the areca cards, they are slightly faster yet.DaveOn 15-Nov-05, at 7:09 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote: I agree - you can get a very good one from www.acmemicro.com or www.rackable.com with 8x 400GB SATA disks and the new 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID controller for about $6K with two
On 17-Nov-05, at 2:50 PM, Alex Turner wrote:
Just pick up a SCSI drive and a consumer ATA drive.
Feel their weight.
You don't have to look inside to tell the difference.
At one point stereo manufacturers put weights in the case just to
make them heavier.
The older ones weighed more and
On 18-Nov-05, at 1:07 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Greg,
On 11/17/05 9:17 PM, Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, a more productive point: it's not really the size of the
database that
controls whether you're I/O bound or CPU bound. It's the available
I/O
bandwidth versus your CPU
On 18-Nov-05, at 8:30 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote: Richard, On 11/18/05 5:22 AM, "Richard Huxton" dev@archonet.com wrote: Well, I'm prepared to swap Luke *TWO* $1000 systems for one $80,000 system if he's got one going :-) Finally, a game worth playing! Except it’s backward – I’ll show you 80
Luke,Interesting numbers. I'm a little concerned about the use of blockdev —setra 16384. If I understand this correctly it assumes that the table is contiguous on the disk does it not ?DaveOn 18-Nov-05, at 10:13 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote: Dave, On 11/18/05 5:00 AM, "Dave Cramer" [EMAIL
Yeah, it's pretty much a known issue for postgres
Dave
On 20-Nov-05, at 4:46 PM, Craig A. James wrote:
This article on ZDNet claims that hyperthreading can *hurt*
performance, due to contention in the L1/L2 cache by a second process:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39237341,00.htm
Has
The problem is you are getting the entire list back at once.
You may want to try using a cursor.
Dave
On 15-Dec-05, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a java.util.List of values (1) which i wanted to use for
a query in the where clause of an simple select statement.
Others are reporting better performance on 8.1.x with very large
shared buffers. You may want to try tweaking that possibly as high as
20% of available memory
Dave
On 20-Mar-06, at 9:59 AM, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
Ok, here's the deal:
I am responisble for an exciting project of evaluating
On 30-Aug-06, at 7:35 AM, Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Currently the load looks like this:
Cpu0 : 96.8% us, 1.9% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.3% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0%
hi, 1.0% si
Cpu1 : 97.8% us, 1.6% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.3% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0%
hi, 0.3% si
Cpu2 : 96.8% us, 2.6%
On 30-Aug-06, at 10:10 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
The hardware is a Compaq 6400r with 4G of EDO RAM, 4x500MHz Xeons
and a Compaq RAID 3200 in RAID 5 configuration running across 3
spindles (34G total space).
The OS is FreeBSD
On 31-Aug-06, at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Indika Maligaspe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is when we are querying a specific set of table (which
all
tables having over 100K of rows), the Postgres user process takes
over or
close 700MB of memory. This is just to return 3000 odd
On 31-Aug-06, at 11:45 AM, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
Good morning,
I'd like to ask you some advice on pg tuning in a high
concurrency OLTP-like environment.
The application I'm talking about is running on Pg 8.0.1.
Under average users load, iostat and vmstat show that iowait stays
well under
On 31-Aug-06, at 2:15 PM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Actually unless you have a ram disk you should probably leave
random_page_cost at 4, shared buffers should be 2x what you have
here, maintenance work mem is pretty high
effective cache should
Guillaume
1G is really not a significant amount of memory these days,
That said 6-10% of available memory should be given to an 8.0 or
older version of postgresql
Newer versions work better around 25%
I'm not sure what you mean by mechanically removed from effective_cache
effective cache
On 1-Sep-06, at 3:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 01 Sep 2006 19:00:52 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've been looking at the results from the pg_statio* tables, to
view the impact of increasing the shared buffers to increase
performance.
I think 'shared
Matteo,
On 2-Sep-06, at 4:37 AM, Matteo Sgalaberni wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:35:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Sgalaberni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok. I stopped all clients. No connections to this database.
When you say this database, do you mean the whole postmaster
On 4-Sep-06, at 8:07 AM, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Dave Cramer pg 'at' fastcrypt.com writes:
Guillaume
1G is really not a significant amount of memory these days,
Yeah though we have 2G or 4G of RAM in our servers (and not only
postgres running on it).
That said 6-10% of available
On 5-Sep-06, at 9:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 9/1/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think 'shared buffers' is one of the most overrated settings
from a
performance standpoint. however you must ensure there is
enough for
things the server does besides caching. It
Hi, Arjen,
On 8-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Hi,
We've been running our webapp database-benchmark again on mysql
and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine
equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey
(5080). And compared
On 8-Sep-06, at 8:44 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Hi, Arjen,
The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons.
Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-
processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But
then again
On 13-Sep-06, at 6:16 AM, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
I have had extremely bad performance historically with onboard
SATA chipsets
on Linux. The one exception has been with the Intel based
chipsets (not the
CPU, the I/O chipset).
This board has Intel chipset. I cannot remember the exact type
All of the tuning parameters would affect all queries
shared buffers, wal buffers, effective cache, to name a few
--dc--
On 13-Sep-06, at 8:24 AM, yoav x wrote:
Hi
I am trying to run sql-bench against PostgreSQL 8.1.4 on Linux.
Some of the insert tests seems to be ver slow
For example:
wrote:
So why are these queries so slow in PG?
--- Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the tuning parameters would affect all queries
shared buffers, wal buffers, effective cache, to name a few
--dc--
On 13-Sep-06, at 8:24 AM, yoav x wrote:
Hi
I am trying to run sql-bench against
Have you tuned postgresql ?
You still haven't told us what the machine is, or the tuning
parameters. If you follow Merlin's links you will find his properly
tuned postgres out performs mysql in every case.
--dc--
On 14-Sep-06, at 2:55 AM, yoav x wrote:
You can use the test with InnoDB by
On 14-Sep-06, at 11:23 AM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
My setup:
Freebsd 6.1
Postgresql 8.1.4
Memory: 8GB
SATA Disks
Raid 1 10 spindles (2 as hot spares)
500GB disks (16MB buffer), 7200 rpm
Raid 10
Raid 2 4 spindles
150GB 10K rpm disks
Raid 10
shared_buffers = 1
shared buffers should be
Francisco
On 14-Sep-06, at 1:36 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
What is effective_cache set to ?
Increasing this seems to have helped significantly a web app. Load
times seem magnitudes faster.
Increased it to effective_cache_size = 12288 # 96MB
What is a reasonable
Francisco
On 14-Sep-06, at 4:30 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
What is a reasonable number?
I estimate I have at least 1 to 2 GB free of memory.
You are using 6G of memory for something else ?
Right now adding up from ps the memory I have about 2GB.
Have an occassional
On 14-Sep-06, at 7:50 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
personally, I'd set this to about 6G. This doesn't actually
consume memory it is just a setting to tell postgresql how much
memory is being used for cache and kernel buffers
Gotcha. Will increase further.
regarding
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other benchmarks
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ...
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten
Ben,
On 20-Oct-06, at 3:49 AM, Ben Suffolk wrote:
Hello all,
I am currently working out the best type of machine for a high
volume pgsql database that I going to need for a project. I will be
purchasing a new server specifically for the database, and it won't
be running any other
On 17-Oct-06, at 3:05 PM, Behl, Rohit ((Infosys)) wrote: HiWe are facing performance problems in postgres while executing a query. When I execute this query on the server it takes 5-10 seconds. Also I get good performance while executing this query from my code in java with the hard codes values.
Brian,
On 16-Nov-06, at 7:03 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
I'm trying to optimize a PostgreSQL 8.1.5 database running on an
Apple G5 Xserve (dual G5 2.3 GHz w/ 8GB of RAM), running Mac OS X
10.4.8 Server.
The queries on the database are mostly reads, and I know a larger
shared memory allocation
On 4-Dec-06, at 12:10 PM, Mark Lonsdale wrote:
Hi
We are migrating our Postgres 7.3.4 application to postgres 8.1.5
and also moving it to a server with a much larger hardware
configuration as well.The server will have the following
specification.
- 4 physical CPUs
Unless you specifically ask for it postgresql doesn't lock any rows
when you update data.
Dave
On 6-Dec-06, at 2:04 AM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Does PostgreSQL lock the entire row in a table if I update only 1
column?
--
Groeten,
Joost Kraaijeveld
Askesis B.V.
Molukkenstraat 14
6524NB
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo