Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 2, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > Again, a database protects your data from getting scrambled should the > > program updating it quit halfway through etc... > > > > Right -- but this is a data mining work, I add a derived column to a row, > and it's computed from that very row and a small second table which should > fit in RAM. Full table update of a single field is one of the worst possible operations with PostgreSQL. mysql is better at this because lack of proper transactions and full table locking allow the rows to be (mostly) updated in place. Ideally, you should be leveraging the power of PostgreSQL so that you can avoid the full table update if possible. Maybe if you step back and think about the problem you may be able to come up with a solution that is more efficient. Also, if you must do it this way, (as others suggest), do CREATE TABLE new_table AS SELECT, then create keys, and drop the old table when done. This is much faster than update. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, 2 May 2008, PFC wrote: CREATE TABLE derived AS SELECT ... FROM ... (perform all your derived calculations here) Given what you have said (that you really want all the data in one table) it may be best to proceed like this: First, take your original table, create an index on the primary key field, and CLUSTER on that index. CREATE TABLE derived AS SELECT ... FROM ... ORDER BY primary key field CREATE INDEX derived_pk ON derived(primary key field) Repeat those last two commands ad nauseum. Then, when you want a final full table, run: CREATE TABLE new_original AS SELECT * FROM original, derived, derived2, ... WHERE original.pk = derived.pk ... That should be a merge join, which should run really quickly, and you can then create all the indexes you want on it. Matthew -- When I first started working with sendmail, I was convinced that the cf file had been created by someone bashing their head on the keyboard. After a week, I realised this was, indeed, almost certainly the case. -- Unknown -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Alexy Khrabrov wrote: SInce I don't index on that new column, I'd assume my old indices would do -- do they change because of rows deletions/insertions, with the effective new rows addresses? Every update is a delete and insert. The new version of the row must be added to the index. Every access through the index then has to look at both versions of the row to see which one is "current" for its transaction. Vacuum will make the space used by the dead rows available for reuse, as well as removing the old index entries and making that space available for new index entries. OK. I've cancelled all previous attempts at UPDATE and will now create some derived tables. See no changes in the previous huge table -- the added column was completely empty. Dropped it. Should I vacuum just in case, or am I guaranteed not to have any extra rows since no UPDATE actually went through and none are showing? Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
>>> Alexy Khrabrov wrote: > OK. I've cancelled all previous attempts at UPDATE and will now > create some derived tables. See no changes in the previous huge table > -- the added column was completely empty. Dropped it. Should I > vacuum just in case, or am I guaranteed not to have any extra rows > since no UPDATE actually went through and none are showing? The canceled attempts would have left dead space. If you have autovacuum running, it probably made the space available for reuse, but depending on exactly how you got to where you are, you may have bloat. Personally, I would do a VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE and capture the output. If bloat is too bad, you may want to CLUSTER the table (if you have the free disk space for a temporary extra copy of the table) or VACUUM FULL followed by REINDEX (if you don't have that much free disk space). Let us know if you need help interpreting the VERBOSE output. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
>>> Alexy Khrabrov wrote: > SInce I don't index on that > new column, I'd assume my old indices would do -- do they change > because of rows deletions/insertions, with the effective new rows > addresses? Every update is a delete and insert. The new version of the row must be added to the index. Every access through the index then has to look at both versions of the row to see which one is "current" for its transaction. Vacuum will make the space used by the dead rows available for reuse, as well as removing the old index entries and making that space available for new index entries. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote: I created several indices for the primary table, yes. That may be part of your problem. All of the indexes all are being updated along with the main data in the row each time you touch a record. There's some optimization there in 8.3 but it doesn't make index overhead go away completely. As mentioned already, the optimal solution to problems in this area is to adjust table normalization as much as feasible to limit what you're updating. Was wondering about it, too -- intuitively I 'd like to say, "stop all indexing" until the column is added, then say "reindex", is it doable? Or would it take longer anyways? SInce I don't index on that new column, I'd assume my old indices would do -- do they change because of rows deletions/insertions, with the effective new rows addresses? Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
I created several indices for the primary table, yes. Sure I can do a table for a volatile column, but then I'll have to create a new such table for each derived column -- that's why I tried to add a column to the existing table. Yet seeing this is really slow, and I need to to many derived analyses like this -- which are later scanned in other computations, so should persist -- I indeed see no other way but to procreate derived tables with the same key, one column per each... OK, so in that case, if you could do all of your derived column calculations in one query like this : CREATE TABLE derived AS SELECT ... FROM ... (perform all your derived calculations here) or : BEGIN; <-- this is important to avoid writing xlog CREATE TABLE derived AS ... INSERT INTO derived SELECT ... FROM ... (perform all your derived calculations here) COMMIT; Basically, updating the entire table several times to add a few simple columns is a bad idea. If you can compute all the data you need in one query, like above, it will be much faster. Especially if you join one large table to several smaller ones, and as long as the huge data set doesn't need to be sorted (check the query plan using EXPLAIN). Try to do as much as possible in one query to scan the large dataset only once. Note that the above will be faster than updating the entire table since it needs to write much less data : it doesn't need to delete the old rows, and it doesn't need to write the transaction log, since if the transaction rolls back, the table never existed anyway. Also since your newly created table doesn't have any indexes, they won't need to be updated. If you really need to update an entire table multiple times, you will need to : - Use hardware that can handle disk writes at a decent speed (that isn't a characteristic of a laptop drive) - use MyIsam, yes (but if you need to make complex queries on the data afterwards, it could suck). -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote: I created several indices for the primary table, yes. That may be part of your problem. All of the indexes all are being updated along with the main data in the row each time you touch a record. There's some optimization there in 8.3 but it doesn't make index overhead go away completely. As mentioned already, the optimal solution to problems in this area is to adjust table normalization as much as feasible to limit what you're updating. Basically, the derived data is not critical at all, -- can I turn (1) off transactional behavior for an UPDATE, What you can do is defer transaction commits to only happen periodically rather than all the time by turning off syncronous_commit and increasing wal_writer_delay; see http://www.postgresql.com.cn/docs/8.3/static/wal-async-commit.html (2) should I care about vacuuming being done on the fly when saving RAM, or need I defer it/manage it manually? It's hard to speculate from here about what optimal vacuum behavior will be. You might find it more efficient to turn autovacuum off when doing these large updates. The flip side is that you'll be guaranteed to end up with more dead rows in the table and that has its own impact later. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Craig James wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I naively thought that if I have a 100,000,000 row table, of the form (integer,integer,smallint,date), and add a real coumn to it, it will scroll through the memory reasonably fast. In Postgres, an update is the same as a delete/insert. That means that changing the data in one column rewrites ALL of the columns for that row, and you end up with a table that's 50% dead space, which you then have to vacuum. Sometimes if you have a "volatile" column that goes with several "static" columns, you're far better off to create a second table for the volatile data, duplicating the primary key in both tables. In your case, it would mean the difference between 10^8 inserts of (int, float), very fast, compared to what you're doing now, which is 10^8 insert and 10^8 deletes of (int, int, smallint, date, float), followed by a big vacuum/analyze (also slow). The down side of this design is that later on, it requires a join to fetch all the data for each key. You do have a primary key on your data, right? Or some sort of index? I created several indices for the primary table, yes. Sure I can do a table for a volatile column, but then I'll have to create a new such table for each derived column -- that's why I tried to add a column to the existing table. Yet seeing this is really slow, and I need to to many derived analyses like this -- which are later scanned in other computations, so should persist -- I indeed see no other way but to procreate derived tables with the same key, one column per each... Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I naively thought that if I have a 100,000,000 row table, of the form (integer,integer,smallint,date), and add a real coumn to it, it will scroll through the memory reasonably fast. In Postgres, an update is the same as a delete/insert. That means that changing the data in one column rewrites ALL of the columns for that row, and you end up with a table that's 50% dead space, which you then have to vacuum. Sometimes if you have a "volatile" column that goes with several "static" columns, you're far better off to create a second table for the volatile data, duplicating the primary key in both tables. In your case, it would mean the difference between 10^8 inserts of (int, float), very fast, compared to what you're doing now, which is 10^8 insert and 10^8 deletes of (int, int, smallint, date, float), followed by a big vacuum/analyze (also slow). The down side of this design is that later on, it requires a join to fetch all the data for each key. You do have a primary key on your data, right? Or some sort of index? Craig -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: Again, a database protects your data from getting scrambled should the program updating it quit halfway through etc... Right -- but this is a data mining work, I add a derived column to a row, and it's computed from that very row and a small second table which should fit in RAM. Have you been vacuuming between these update attempts? Each one has created millions of dead rows and bloated your data store. vacuum full / cluster / reindex may be needed. I've read postgresql.conf better and see autovacuum = on is commented out, so it's on. That explains why shutting down was taking so long to shut autovacuum down too. Basically, the derived data is not critical at all, -- can I turn (1) off transactional behavior for an UPDATE, (2) should I care about vacuuming being done on the fly when saving RAM, or need I defer it/ manage it manually? I wonder what MySQL would do here on MyISAM tables without transactional behavior -- perhaps this is the case more suitable for them? Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So how should I divide say a 512 MB between shared_buffers and, um, what > else? (new to pg tuning :) Don't worry so much about the rest of the settings. Maybe increase sort_mem (aka work_mem) to something like 16M or so. that's about it. > I naively thought that if I have a 100,000,000 row table, of the form > (integer,integer,smallint,date), and add a real coumn to it, it will scroll > through the memory reasonably fast. This is a database. It makes changes on disk in such a way that they won't be lost should power be cut off. If you're just gonna be batch processing data that it's ok to lose halfway through, then python / perl / php etc might be a better choice. > Yet when I had shared_buffers=128 MB, > it was hanging there 8 hours before I killed it, and now with 1500MB is > paging again for several hours with no end in sight. You went from kinda small to WAY too big. 512M should be a happy medium. > Why can't it just add > a column to a row at a time and be done with it soon enough? :) Adding a column is instantaneous. populating it is not. > It takes > inordinately long compared to a FORTRAN or even python program and there's > no index usage for this table, a sequential scan, why all the paging? Again, a database protects your data from getting scrambled should the program updating it quit halfway through etc... Have you been vacuuming between these update attempts? Each one has created millions of dead rows and bloated your data store. vacuum full / cluster / reindex may be needed. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
Interestingly, after shutting down the server with shared_buffer=1500MB in the middle of that UPDATE, I see this: bash-3.2$ /opt/bin/pg_ctl -D /data/pgsql/ stop waiting for server to shut downLOG: received smart shutdown request LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting down ... failed pg_ctl: server does not shut down bash-3.2$ /opt/bin/pg_ctl -D /data/pgsql/ stop waiting for server to shut down..LOG: shutting down LOG: database system is shut down done server stopped -- had to do it twice, the box was paging for a minute or two. Should I do something about the autovacuum e.g. to turn it off completely? I thought it's not on as all of it was still commented out in postgresql.conf as shipped, only tweaked a few numbers as reported before. Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote: I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB. In addition to reducing that as you've been advised, you'll probably need to increase checkpoint_segments significantly from the default (3) in order to get good performance on an update that large. Something like 30 would be a reasonable starting point. I'd suggest doing those two things, seeing how things go, and reporting back if you still think performance is unacceptable. We'd need to know your PostgreSQL version in order to really target future suggestions. PostgreSQL 8.3.1, compiled from source on Mac OSX 10.5.2 (Leopard). Saw the checkpoint_segments warning every ~20sec and increased it to 100 already. Will see what 512 MB buys me, but 128 MB was paging miserably. Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I don't think you should figure on more than 1GB being usefully available to Postgres, and you can't give all or even most of that space to shared_buffers. So how should I divide say a 512 MB between shared_buffers and, um, what else? (new to pg tuning :) I naively thought that if I have a 100,000,000 row table, of the form (integer,integer,smallint,date), and add a real coumn to it, it will scroll through the memory reasonably fast. Yet when I had shared_buffers=128 MB, it was hanging there 8 hours before I killed it, and now with 1500MB is paging again for several hours with no end in sight. Why can't it just add a column to a row at a time and be done with it soon enough? :) It takes inordinately long compared to a FORTRAN or even python program and there's no index usage for this table, a sequential scan, why all the paging? Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote: I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB. In addition to reducing that as you've been advised, you'll probably need to increase checkpoint_segments significantly from the default (3) in order to get good performance on an update that large. Something like 30 would be a reasonable starting point. I'd suggest doing those two things, seeing how things go, and reporting back if you still think performance is unacceptable. We'd need to know your PostgreSQL version in order to really target future suggestions. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I randomly increased values in postgresql.conf to >> >> shared_buffers = 1500MB >> max_fsm_pages = 200 >> max_fsm_relations = 1 > On a laptop with 2G ram, 1.5Gig shared buffers is probably WAY too high. s/probably/definitely/, especially seeing that OS X is a bit of a memory hog itself. I don't think you should figure on more than 1GB being usefully available to Postgres, and you can't give all or even most of that space to shared_buffers. > No, the background writer reads through the shared buffers for dirty > ones and writes them out. so, it's not really using MORE memory, it's > just showing that it's attached to the ginormous shared_buffer pool > you've set up. Yeah. You have to be aware of top's quirky behavior for shared memory: on most platforms it will count the shared memory against *each* process, but only as much of the shared memory as that process has touched so far. So over time the reported size of any PG process will tend to climb to something over the shared memory size, but most of that isn't "real". I haven't directly checked whether OS X's top behaves that way, but given your report I think it does. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Greetings -- I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, > and > > > allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB. However, I see two > > > processes in top, the UPDATE process eating about 850 MB and the writer > > > process eating about 750 MB. The box starts paging. Why is there the > > > writer taking almost as much space as the UPDATE, and how can I shrink > it? > > > > > > > Shared_buffers is NOT the main memory pool for all operations in > > pgsql, it is simply the buffer pool used to hold data being operated > > on. > > > > Things like sorts etc. use other memory and can exhaust your machine. > > However, I'd like to see the output of vmstat 1 or top while this is > > happening. > > > > How much memory does this machine have? > > > > It's a 2GB RAM MacBook. Here's the top for postgres > > Processes: 117 total, 2 running, 6 stuck, 109 sleeping... 459 threads > 12:34:27 > Load Avg: 0.27, 0.24, 0.32CPU usage: 8.41% user, 11.06% sys, 80.53% > idle > SharedLibs: num = 15, resident = 40M code, 2172K data, 3172K linkedit. > MemRegions: num = 20719, resident = 265M + 12M private, 1054M shared. > PhysMem: 354M wired, 1117M active, 551M inactive, 2022M used, 19M free. > VM: 26G + 373M 1176145(160) pageins, 1446482(2) pageouts > > PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE > 51775 postgres 6.8% 2:40.16 1 9 39 1504K 896M 859M+ > 1562M > 51767 postgres 0.0% 0:39.74 1 8 28 752K 896M 752M > 1560M SOME snipping here. > I randomly increased values in postgresql.conf to > > shared_buffers = 1500MB > max_fsm_pages = 200 > max_fsm_relations = 1 On a laptop with 2G ram, 1.5Gig shared buffers is probably WAY too high. > Should I set the background writer parameters somehow to decrease the RAM > consumed by the writer? No, the background writer reads through the shared buffers for dirty ones and writes them out. so, it's not really using MORE memory, it's just showing that it's attached to the ginormous shared_buffer pool you've set up. Lower your shared_buffers to about 512M or so and see how it works. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On May 2, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings -- I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB. However, I see two processes in top, the UPDATE process eating about 850 MB and the writer process eating about 750 MB. The box starts paging. Why is there the writer taking almost as much space as the UPDATE, and how can I shrink it? Shared_buffers is NOT the main memory pool for all operations in pgsql, it is simply the buffer pool used to hold data being operated on. Things like sorts etc. use other memory and can exhaust your machine. However, I'd like to see the output of vmstat 1 or top while this is happening. How much memory does this machine have? It's a 2GB RAM MacBook. Here's the top for postgres Processes: 117 total, 2 running, 6 stuck, 109 sleeping... 459 threads 12 :34:27 Load Avg: 0.27, 0.24, 0.32CPU usage: 8.41% user, 11.06% sys, 80.53% idle SharedLibs: num = 15, resident = 40M code, 2172K data, 3172K linkedit. MemRegions: num = 20719, resident = 265M + 12M private, 1054M shared. PhysMem: 354M wired, 1117M active, 551M inactive, 2022M used, 19M free. VM: 26G + 373M 1176145(160) pageins, 1446482(2) pageouts PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE 51775 postgres 6.8% 2:40.16 1 9 39 1504K 896M 859M+ 1562M 51767 postgres 0.0% 0:39.74 1 8 28 752K 896M 752M 1560M the first is the UPDATE, the second is the writer. The query is very simple, netflix=> create index movs_mid_idx on movs(mid); CREATE INDEX netflix=> update ratings set offset1=avg-rating from movs where mid=movie_id; where the table ratings has about 100 million rows, movs has about 20,000. I randomly increased values in postgresql.conf to shared_buffers = 1500MB max_fsm_pages = 200 max_fsm_relations = 1 Should I set the background writer parameters somehow to decrease the RAM consumed by the writer? Cheers, Alexy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] two memory-consuming postgres processes
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Alexy Khrabrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings -- I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and > allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB. However, I see two > processes in top, the UPDATE process eating about 850 MB and the writer > process eating about 750 MB. The box starts paging. Why is there the > writer taking almost as much space as the UPDATE, and how can I shrink it? Shared_buffers is NOT the main memory pool for all operations in pgsql, it is simply the buffer pool used to hold data being operated on. Things like sorts etc. use other memory and can exhaust your machine. However, I'd like to see the output of vmstat 1 or top while this is happening. How much memory does this machine have? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
