Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Hi Sam,Tomas In my first post i have mentioned all how much shared (shared buffers, effective cache size, work mem, etc.) and my OS and hardware information and what are the basic settings i have changed and regarding Explain analyze i gave one sample query because if i tune that particular table which has records almost 16crore i thought my problem will solve... Regards Hashim On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote: On 8 Listopad 2011, 4:21, Mohamed Hashim wrote: Hi all, Thanks for all your responses. Sorry for late response Earlier we used Postgres8.3.10 with Desktop computer (as server) and configuration of the system (I2 core with 4GB RAM) and also the application was slow i dint change any postgres config settings. May be because of low config We thought the aplication is slow so we opted to go for higher configuration server(with RAID 1) which i mentioned earlier. I thought the application will go fast but unfortunately there is no improvement so i tried to change the postgres config settings and trying to tune my queries wherever possible but still i was not able to..improve the performance.. As Sam Gendler already wrote, we really can't help you until you post all the relevant info. So far we've seen a single EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and very vague description of the hardware. We need to know more about the hardware and the basic config options (shared buffers, effective cache size, work mem, etc.). We need to know how much memory is actually available to PostgreSQL and page cache (how much is consumed by the application - as I understand it it runs on the same machine). We need to know what OS it's running on, and we need to see iostat/vmstat output collected when the app is slow. Please read this and perform the basic tuning (and let us know what values you've used): http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server Also post So will it helpful if we try GIST or GIN for integer array[] colum (source_detail) with enable_seqscan=off and default_statistics_target=1000? This is severely premature - it might help, but you should do the basic tuning first. It might actually cause you more trouble. You've already done this mistake - fixing something withouth veryfying it's actually a problem - by requesting a RAID1 config. Don't do that mistake again. Tomas -- Regards Mohamed Hashim.N Mobile:09894587678
Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Hi all, Thanks for all your responses. Sorry for late response Earlier we used Postgres8.3.10 with Desktop computer (as server) and configuration of the system (I2 core with 4GB RAM) and also the application was slow i dint change any postgres config settings. May be because of low config We thought the aplication is slow so we opted to go for higher configuration server(with RAID 1) which i mentioned earlier. I thought the application will go fast but unfortunately there is no improvement so i tried to change the postgres config settings and trying to tune my queries wherever possible but still i was not able to..improve the performance.. So will it helpful if we try GIST or GIN for integer array[] colum (source_detail) with enable_seqscan=off and default_statistics_target=1000? Regards Hashim On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Mario Weilguni roadrunn...@gmx.at wrote: Am 03.11.2011 17:08, schrieb Tomas Vondra: On 3 Listopad 2011, 16:02, Mario Weilguni wrote: snip No doubt about that, querying tables using conditions on array columns is not the best direction in most cases, especially when those tables are huge. Still, the interesting part here is that the OP claims this worked just fine in the older version and after an upgrade the performance suddenly dropped. This could be caused by many things, and we're just guessing because we don't have any plans from the old version. Tomas Not really, Mohamed always said he has 9.0.3, Marcus Engene wrote about problems after the migration from 8.x to 9.x. Or did I miss something here? Regards, Mario -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.** org pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-performancehttp://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Regards Mohamed Hashim.N Mobile:09894587678
Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Dear All Thanks for your suggestions replies. The below are the sample query which i put for particular one bill_id EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abd.bill_no as bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS date,mp.product_desc as product_desc,std.quantity,std.area,rip.price AS rate FROM acc_bill_items_106 abi JOIN acc_bill_details_106 abd ON abd.bill_id=abi.bill_id JOIN stk_source ss ON ss.source_detail[1]=1 and ss.source_detail[2]=abi.item_id JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106 std ON std.stock_id=ss.stock_id JOIN stock_details_106 sd106 ON sd106.stock_id=std.stock_id JOIN master_product_106 mp ON mp.product_id= sd106.product_id JOIN receipt_item_price_106 rip ON rip.receipt_item_id=abi.item_id WHERE abi.bill_id=12680; QUERY PLAN --- Nested Loop (cost=0.00..7230339.59 rows=54369 width=39) (actual time=158156.895..158157.206 rows=1 loops=1) - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..7149579.10 rows=8192 width=32) (actual time=158156.863..158157.172 rows=1 loops=1) - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..7119922.60 rows=8192 width=27) (actual time=158156.855..158157.164 rows=1 loops=1) - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..7086865.70 rows=8192 width=19) (actual time=158156.835..158157.143 rows=1 loops=1) Join Filter: (abi.item_id = ss.source_detail[2]) - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..604.54 rows=2 width=23) (actual time=2.782..2.786 rows=1 loops=1) - Index Scan using acc_bill_details_106_pkey on acc_bill_details_106 abd (cost=0.00..6.29 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=0.010..0.012 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (bill_id = 12680) - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..598.19 rows=2 width=19) (actual time=2.770..2.772 rows=1 loops=1) Join Filter: (abi.item_id = rip.receipt_item_id) - Seq Scan on receipt_item_price_106 rip (cost=0.00..162.48 rows=4216 width=11) (actual time=0.005..0.562 rows=4218 loops=1) - Materialize (cost=0.00..140.59 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=4218) - Seq Scan on acc_bill_items_106 abi (cost=0.00..140.58 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=0.412..0.412 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (bill_id = 12680) - Materialize (cost=0.00..7024562.68 rows=819222 width=33) (actual time=0.035..153869.575 rows=19010943 loops=1) - Append (cost=0.00..7014065.57 rows=819222 width=33) (actual time=0.034..145403.828 rows=19010943 loops=1) - Seq Scan on stk_source ss (cost=0.00..45.10 rows=5 width=36) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=0 loops=1) Filter: (source_detail[1] = 1) - Seq Scan on stk_source ss (cost=0.00..6.32 rows=2596 width=33) (actual time=0.033..118.019 rows=66356 loops=1) Filter: (source_detail[1] = 1) - Seq Scan on stk_source ss (cost=0.00..90405.31 rows=10559 width=33) (actual time=0.010..490.712 rows=288779 loops=1) Filter: (source_detail[1] = 1) - Seq Scan on stk_source ss (cost=0.00..6901388.84 rows=806062 width=33) (actual time=13.382..142493.302 rows=18655808 loops=1) Filter: (source_detail[1] = 1) - Index Scan using sd106_stock_id_idx on stock_details_106 sd106 (cost=0.00..4.00 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.014..0.014 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (sd106.stock_id = ss.stock_id) - Index Scan using master_product_pkey on master_product_106 mp (cost=0.00..3.59 rows=1 width=13) (actual time=0.006..0.006 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (mp.product_id = sd106.product_id) - Index Scan using std106_stock_id_idx on stock_transaction_detail_106 std (cost=0.00..9.70 rows=4 width=19) (actual time=0.007..0.009 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (std.stock_id = ss.stock_id) Total runtime: 158240.795 ms http://goog_1591150719*http://explain.depesz.com/s/Tyc *Similarly i have used the queries on various details pages and views that too if i go for one month transactions its taking so much times. I will try to upgrade to latest version and will try to tune more my queries so changing the conf settings wouldn't help for better performance?? Thanks Regards Hashim On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Marcus Engene meng...@engene.se writes: After I upgraded from Postgres 8.3/8.4 to 9.0 I had all sorts of problems with queries with many joins. Queries that
Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Any idea or suggestions how to improve my database best
performance.???
Regards
Hashim
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Mohamed Hashim nmdhas...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Alban Gregg.
i will describe little more about that table
- We are using PHP application with Apache server Postgresql 9.0.3
in a dedicated server.
- stk_source table is mainly used to track the transactions from
parent to child
Table _100410.stk_source
Column | Type|
Modifiers
---+---+-
source_id | integer | not null default
nextval('source_id_seq'::regclass)
stock_id | integer |
source_detail | integer[] |
transaction_reference | integer |
is_user_set | boolean | default false
We store transaction_type and transaction_id in source_detail column which
is an interger array for each transactions
We use various functions to get the info based on transaction type
For eg:
In function to get the batch details we have used as
FOR batch_id_rec in select distinct(batch_id) from order_status_batches
osb join batch_status_stock bss on osb.status_id=bss.batch_status_id where
stock_id in (select source_detail[2] from stk_source where stock_id IN
(SELECT
std_i.stock_id
FROM order_details_shipments
ods
JOIN shipment_pack_stock sps ON sps.pack_id=ods.pack_id AND
ods.order_id=sps.order_id AND ods.item_id=sps.item_id
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106 std ON
std.transaction_id=sps.transaction_id
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106 std_i ON std.stock_id =
std_i.stock_id AND std_i.transaction_type = 'i'::bpchar
WHERE shipment_item_id=$1 ) and source_detail[1]=3) LOOP
...
..
Similarly we have used in php pages and views
SELECT abd.bill_no as bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS
date,mp.product_desc as product_desc,std.quantity,std.area,rip.price AS
rate,
FROM acc_bill_items_106 abi
JOIN acc_bill_details_106_table abd ON abd.bill_id=abi.bill_id AND
abd.bill_status='act'
JOIN stk_source_table ss ON ss.source_detail[2]=abi.item_id and
ss.source_detail[1]=1
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106_table std ON std.stock_id=ss.stock_id
JOIN stock_details_106_table sd106 ON sd106.stock_id=std.stock_id
JOIN master_product_106_table mp ON mp.product_id= sd106.product_id
JOIN receipt_item_price_106_table rip ON
rip.receipt_item_id=abi.item_id
WHERE abi.bill_id=$bill_id AND std.transaction_type='o' ;
So where ever we have JOIN or used in functions the performance is very
low some times query returns results takes more than 45 mints.
Normally if we fetch Select * from some_table..it returns very
fast because it has less records.
But when i put Select * from stk_source or to find the actual_cost
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM stk_source;
i couln't able to retrieve the planner details waited for more than 50 to
60 mints
so question is in spite of having good server with high configuration and
also changed the postgresql configuration settings then why the system is
crawling?
*What are the other parameters have to look out or what are the other
config settings to be change to have the best performance??*
Kindly help to sort out this problem..
Thanks in advance..!!
Regards
Hashim
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.comwrote:
On 28 October 2011 09:02, Mohamed Hashim nmdhas...@gmail.com wrote:
EXPLAIN select * from stk_source ;
QUERY
PLAN
-
Result (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Append (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..42.40 rows=1080
width=45)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..20928.37 rows=519179
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..85125.82 rows=2111794
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..6469658.80
rows=160500460
width=42)
That plan gives you the best possible performance given your query.
Your example probably doesn't fit the problem you're investigating.
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
--
Regards
Mohamed Hashim.N
Mobile:09894587678
--
Regards
Mohamed Hashim.N
Mobile:09894587678
[PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
I have Quadcore server with 8GB RAM
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 44
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5607 @ 2.27GHz
stepping: 2
cpu MHz : 1197.000
cache size : 8192 KB
MemTotal:8148636 kB
MemFree: 4989116 kB
Buffers:8464 kB
Cached: 2565456 kB
SwapCached:81196 kB
Active: 2003796 kB
Inactive: 843896 kB
Active(anon):1826176 kB
Inactive(anon): 405964 kB
Active(file): 177620 kB
Inactive(file): 437932 kB
Unevictable: 0 kB
Mlocked: 0 kB
SwapTotal: 16779260 kB
SwapFree: 16303356 kB
Dirty: 1400 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages:208260 kB
Mapped: 1092008 kB
Shmem: 1958368 kB
Slab: 224964 kB
SReclaimable: 60136 kB
SUnreclaim: 164828 kB
KernelStack:2864 kB
PageTables:35684 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce:0 kB
WritebackTmp: 0 kB
CommitLimit:20853576 kB
Committed_AS:3672176 kB
VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB
VmallocUsed: 303292 kB
VmallocChunk: 34359429308 kB
HardwareCorrupted: 0 kB
HugePages_Total: 0
HugePages_Free:0
HugePages_Rsvd:0
HugePages_Surp:0
Hugepagesize: 2048 kB
DirectMap4k:6144 kB
DirectMap2M: 2082816 kB
DirectMap1G: 6291456 kB
My database size is
pg_size_pretty
21 GB
i have one table which has data more than 160500460 rows almost...and i
have partioned with yearwise in different schemas
stk_source
Table _100410.stk_source
Column | Type|
Modifiers | Storage | Description
---+---+-+--+-
source_id | integer | not null default
nextval('source_id_seq'::regclass) | plain|
stock_id | integer
| | plain|
source_detail | integer[]
| | extended |
transaction_reference | integer
| | plain|
is_user_set | boolean | default
false | plain|
Triggers:
insert_stk_source_trigger BEFORE INSERT ON stk_source FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE stk_source_insert_trigger()
Child tables: _100410_200809.stk_source,
_100410_200910.stk_source,
_100410_201011.stk_source,
_100410_201112.stk_source
Has OIDs: yes
Also have indexes
ss_source_id_pk PRIMARY KEY, btree (source_id)
stk_source_stock_id_idx btree (stock_id)
First two years data is very less so no issues
and next two years table size is 2GB 10 GB respectively.
EXPLAIN select * from stk_source ;
QUERY
PLAN
-
Result (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Append (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..42.40 rows=1080 width=45)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..20928.37 rows=519179
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..85125.82 rows=2111794
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..6469658.80 rows=160500460
width=42)
because of this table my total database performance got affected i want to
optimize the settings by reading the below blogs i have changed some
configurations but no use still sytem is slow
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.performance/29561
Actually we are using one *PHP* application in that we have used *Postgresql
9.0.3* database.The server is accessing 40 -50 users dailyso want to
have more performancemy config details are below
Could any one help how to tune the settings for better performance???
Thanks in advance..
# - Memory -
*shared_buffers = 2GB * # min 128kB
# (change requires
restart)
#temp_buffers = 8MB # min 800kB
*max_prepared_transactions = 0 * # zero disables the feature
# (change requires
restart)
# Note: Increasing max_prepared_transactions costs ~600 bytes of shared
memory
# per transaction slot, plus lock space (see max_locks_per_transaction).
# It is not advisable to set max_prepared_transactions nonzero unless you
# actively intend to use prepared transactions.
*work_mem = 48MB *# min 64kB
*maintenance_work_mem = 256MB*# min 1MB
*max_stack_depth = 6MB * # min 100kB
# - Planner Cost Constants -
*seq_page_cost = 1.0 * # measured on an arbitrary scale
Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Actually we are using various views and functions to get the info for reporting purpose in that views or functions we have used or joined the above table mentioned. I thought of will get reply from any one from the lists so only i put anyway i will continue with only pgsql-performance mailing lists. Regards Hashim On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Gregg Jaskiewicz gryz...@gmail.com wrote: what sort of queries you are running against it ? the select * from.. is not really (hopefully) a query you are running from your php app. -- Regards Mohamed Hashim.N Mobile:09894587678
Re: [PERFORM] Performance Problem with postgresql 9.03, 8GB RAM,Quadcore Processor Server--Need help!!!!!!!
Thanks Alban Gregg.
i will describe little more about that table
- We are using PHP application with Apache server Postgresql 9.0.3 in a
dedicated server.
- stk_source table is mainly used to track the transactions from parent
to child
Table _100410.stk_source
Column | Type|
Modifiers
---+---+-
source_id | integer | not null default
nextval('source_id_seq'::regclass)
stock_id | integer |
source_detail | integer[] |
transaction_reference | integer |
is_user_set | boolean | default false
We store transaction_type and transaction_id in source_detail column which
is an interger array for each transactions
We use various functions to get the info based on transaction type
For eg:
In function to get the batch details we have used as
FOR batch_id_rec in select distinct(batch_id) from order_status_batches osb
join batch_status_stock bss on osb.status_id=bss.batch_status_id where
stock_id in (select source_detail[2] from stk_source where stock_id IN
(SELECT
std_i.stock_id
FROM order_details_shipments
ods
JOIN shipment_pack_stock sps ON sps.pack_id=ods.pack_id AND
ods.order_id=sps.order_id AND ods.item_id=sps.item_id
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106 std ON
std.transaction_id=sps.transaction_id
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106 std_i ON std.stock_id =
std_i.stock_id AND std_i.transaction_type = 'i'::bpchar
WHERE shipment_item_id=$1 ) and source_detail[1]=3) LOOP
...
..
Similarly we have used in php pages and views
SELECT abd.bill_no as bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS
date,mp.product_desc as product_desc,std.quantity,std.area,rip.price AS
rate,
FROM acc_bill_items_106 abi
JOIN acc_bill_details_106_table abd ON abd.bill_id=abi.bill_id AND
abd.bill_status='act'
JOIN stk_source_table ss ON ss.source_detail[2]=abi.item_id and
ss.source_detail[1]=1
JOIN stock_transaction_detail_106_table std ON std.stock_id=ss.stock_id
JOIN stock_details_106_table sd106 ON sd106.stock_id=std.stock_id
JOIN master_product_106_table mp ON mp.product_id= sd106.product_id
JOIN receipt_item_price_106_table rip ON rip.receipt_item_id=abi.item_id
WHERE abi.bill_id=$bill_id AND std.transaction_type='o' ;
So where ever we have JOIN or used in functions the performance is very low
some times query returns results takes more than 45 mints.
Normally if we fetch Select * from some_table..it returns very fast
because it has less records.
But when i put Select * from stk_source or to find the actual_cost
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM stk_source;
i couln't able to retrieve the planner details waited for more than 50 to 60
mints
so question is in spite of having good server with high configuration and
also changed the postgresql configuration settings then why the system is
crawling?
*What are the other parameters have to look out or what are the other config
settings to be change to have the best performance??*
Kindly help to sort out this problem..
Thanks in advance..!!
Regards
Hashim
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 October 2011 09:02, Mohamed Hashim nmdhas...@gmail.com wrote:
EXPLAIN select * from stk_source ;
QUERY
PLAN
-
Result (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Append (cost=0.00..6575755.39 rows=163132513 width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..42.40 rows=1080
width=45)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..20928.37 rows=519179
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..85125.82 rows=2111794
width=42)
- Seq Scan on stk_source (cost=0.00..6469658.80
rows=160500460
width=42)
That plan gives you the best possible performance given your query.
Your example probably doesn't fit the problem you're investigating.
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
--
Regards
Mohamed Hashim.N
Mobile:09894587678
