[PERFORM] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-22 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
As anyone done benchmarking tests with postgres running on solaris and linux (redhat) assuming both environment has similar hardware, memory, processing speed etc. By reading few posts here, i can see linux would outperform solaris cause linux being very good at kernel caching than solaris which

Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:37 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:05:45PM -0800, Subbiah, Stalin wrote: being the key performance

Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
. Thanks! -Original Message- From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:13 PM To: Matt Clark; Subbiah, Stalin; 'Andrew Sullivan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux Matt, Stalin, As for the compute

Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
Yep. Thanks Bill. -Original Message- From: Bill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:10 PM To: Subbiah, Stalin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux Subbiah, Stalin wrote: As anyone done performance

Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Databases Vs. Schemas

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Subbiah, Stalin wrote: --sorry to repost, just subscribed to the list. hopefully it gets to the list this time -- Hi All, We are evaluating the options for having multiple databases vs. schemas on a single database cluster for a custom grown app that we developed. Each

[PERFORM] Databases Vs. Schemas

2004-03-26 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
Hi All, We are evaluating the options for having multiple databases vs. schemas on a single database cluster for a custom grown app that we developed. Each app installs same set of tables for each service. And the service could easily be in thousands. so Is it better to have 1000 databases vs

[PERFORM] Query tuning

2006-08-22 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
Hello All, This query runs forever and ever. Nature of this table being lots of inserts/deletes/query, I vacuum it every half hour to keep the holes reusable and nightly once vacuum analyze to update the optimizer. We've got index on eventtime only. Running it for current day uses index range

Re: [PERFORM] Query tuning

2006-08-22 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
) OR ((userdomainid)::text = 'tzRh39d0d91luNGT1weIUjLvFIcA'::text))) Total runtime: 437884.134 ms (6 rows) -Original Message- From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:37 PM To: Subbiah, Stalin Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Query

Re: [PERFORM] Query tuning

2006-08-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
I get the same plan after running vacuum analyze. Nope, I don't have index on objdomainid, objid and userdomainid. Only eventime has it. -Original Message- From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:06 PM To: Subbiah, Stalin Cc: pgsql-performance

Re: [PERFORM] Query tuning

2006-08-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
Changing limit or offset to a small number doesn't have any change in plans. Likewise enable_seqscan to false. They still take 8-10 mins to runs. -Original Message- From: Dave Dutcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:20 PM To: Subbiah, Stalin Cc: pgsql

[PERFORM] RESEND:Postgres with Sun Cluster HA/Solaris 10

2007-09-05 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
Hello All, We have a postgres setup on solaris 10 with sun cluster for HA purposes. 2 nodes are configured in the cluster in active-passive mode with pg_data stored on external storage. Everything is working as expected however, when we either switch the resource group from one node to other or

[PERFORM] Update performance degrades over time

2008-05-14 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
Hi All, We are doing some load tests with our application running postgres 8.2.4. At times we see updates on a table taking longer (around 11-16secs) than expected sub-second response time. The table in question is getting updated constantly through the load tests. In checking the table size

Re: [PERFORM] Update performance degrades over time

2008-05-15 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
(cost=0.00..8.51 rows=1 width=194) (actual time=0.162..0.166 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: ((id)::text = '32xka8axki8'::text) Thanks in advance. Stalin -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:56 AM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql

Re: [PERFORM] Update performance degrades over time

2008-05-15 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
Any system catalog views I can check for wait events causing slower response times. Thanks in advance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Subbiah Stalin Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:28 AM To: Jeffrey Baker; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org

[PERFORM] Sort performance

2009-01-29 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
Hi All, I'm in the process of tuning a query that does a sort on a huge dataset. With work_mem set to 2M, i see the sort operation spilling to disk writing upto 430MB and then return the first 500 rows. Our query is of the sort select co1, col2... from table where col1 like 'aa%' order col1

Re: [PERFORM] Sort performance

2009-01-29 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
the output. I guess some sort of merge operation happens to get the first 500 records out. Thanks, Stalin -Original Message- From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:21 PM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re

Re: [PERFORM] Sort performance

2009-01-29 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
...@enterprisedb.com] On Behalf Of Gregory Stark Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:36 PM To: Robert Haas Cc: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Sort performance Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84 ssubb

[PERFORM] Query help

2009-08-03 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
All, Not sure what's wrong in below execution plan but at times the query runs for 5 minutes to complete and after a while it runs within a second or two. Here is explain analyze out of the query. SELECT OBJECTS.ID,OBJECTS.NAME,OBJECTS.TYPE,OBJECTS.STATUS,OBJECTS.ALTNAME,OBJE

Re: [PERFORM] Query help

2009-08-03 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
with 10 disks (5+5). Let me know if you need any other information. Thanks Kevin. Stalin -Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:48 PM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM

Re: [PERFORM] Query help

2009-08-03 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
:45 PM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Query help Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84 ssubb...@motorola.com wrote: Shared buffer=8G, effective cache size=4G. That is odd; if your shared buffers are at 8G, you must have more than 4G of cache. How much RAM

Re: [PERFORM] Query help

2009-08-04 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
necessary stats on the next occurrence of the slow query. Stalin -Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:57 AM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Query help Subbiah Stalin

Re: [PERFORM] Query help

2009-08-05 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
affected by queries like these. Stalin -Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:57 AM To: Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Query help Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84 ssubb...@motorola.com

[PERFORM] Free memory usage Sol10, 8.2.9

2009-11-03 Thread Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
All, I'm trying to understand the free memory usage and why it falls below 17G sometimes and what could be causing it. Any pointers would be appreciated. r...@prod1 # prtconf System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Memory size: 32768 Megabytes [postg...@prod1 ~]$ vmstat 5 10 kthr