On 3/30/06, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I seem to recall that on Linux with default settings fsync()
> lies and does not actually sync data before returning, so maybe it's
> worth turning off on FreeBSD too if you're comfortable with the
> implications of this.
>
A few mont
Kris Kennaway writes:
Well there you go then..you're trying to access a file that is larger
than RAM, so naturally you won't be able to fit it all in RAM, and
with 1GB less RAM in your system you'll spend much more time reading
bits of it from disk and later throwing them away.
Not to mention
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:18:02 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Beto,
>
> i believe he has given up.
>
:( without knowing WHAT is the problem?
> i would say that on a dedicated database machine 50-75%
> dedicated(shared) memory is not overkill.
of course not. I am not sure I read his vmstat scr
i just thought of another possible cause:
what is the location of the to-be-imported file? local disk?
because if it is on the network, check your NIC if you are running at
the maximum rate, nfs buffers, etc ( i was fooled by such a situation
once ).
regards,
usleep
On 4/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTE
Beto,
i believe he has given up.
i would say that on a dedicated database machine 50-75%
dedicated(shared) memory is not overkill.
wasn't there some other switch which determined wether to page
shared-memory out?
regards,
usleep
On 4/3/06, Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:09:26 -0600
Miguel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database,
> im using the copy command, using the same file and version of
> postgres in gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd
> 6.1-beta4 it has already spent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miguel,
you are not inserting into an indexed table, are you?
yes, i am...
is that a problem?
it used to be a problem, but since your gentoo box is doing the same
task in 4-5 minutes, i doubt it is currently the problem.
i seem to recall some speedup
Miguel,
> >you are not inserting into an indexed table, are you?
>
> yes, i am...
> is that a problem?
it used to be a problem, but since your gentoo box is doing the same
task in 4-5 minutes, i doubt it is currently the problem.
i seem to recall some speedup of the copyin-command in one of the
Bill,
> > Actually I seem to recall that on Linux with default settings fsync()
> > lies and does not actually sync data before returning, so maybe it's
> > worth turning off on FreeBSD too if you're comfortable with the
> > implications of this.
>
> If you have fsync off and the system crashes, y
Miguel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Miguel
> >
> >>attached is my config file, shared_buffers are 25% of total RAM
> >>im guessing that this is a disk controlled bug or something, when i
> >>execute any query involving many rows, the server response is very low,
> >>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:24:37PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:49:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Kris,
> > >
> > > > Yes, this is my impression of the problem too. Any time your process
> > > > is waiting on dis
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:49:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Kris,
> >
> > > Yes, this is my impression of the problem too. Any time your process
> > > is waiting on disk I/O it is going to perform terribly (on any OS -
> > > disks are slow),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miguel
attached is my config file, shared_buffers are 25% of total RAM
im guessing that this is a disk controlled bug or something, when i
execute any query involving many rows, the server response is very low,
ssh, su, even copy or rename a file, cpu usage remains
Miguel wrote:
.. "postgresql is slow for me"
and others wrote:
... "you may have to dedicate more memory to it"
Sorry for the above, but I haven't seen the beginning of the thread.
I don't know PostgreSQL much but I also has been recently running quite
simple program on one quite large table (
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:49:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > Yes, this is my impression of the problem too. Any time your process
> > is waiting on disk I/O it is going to perform terribly (on any OS -
> > disks are slow), and the way to fix this is to make sure it does as
> >
Miguel
> attached is my config file, shared_buffers are 25% of total RAM
> im guessing that this is a disk controlled bug or something, when i
> execute any query involving many rows, the server response is very low,
> ssh, su, even copy or rename a file, cpu usage remains ~87% idle though
you ar
Kris,
> Yes, this is my impression of the problem too. Any time your process
> is waiting on disk I/O it is going to perform terribly (on any OS -
> disks are slow), and the way to fix this is to make sure it does as
> little I/O as possible (by allowing everything to be cached in RAM).
just for
Miguel,
> >
> Yes, it is a dump of a single table. i want to tranfer the data from one
> server to another, and this is one of the biggest table.
ok, but gentoo performs the same task ok, so it is not a postgresql problem.
you have not confirmed wether the gentoo-box is running with the same
p
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:41:51PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Miguel,
>
> > 3.0G
>
> i looked at your top-screenshot, i have the impression you could
> dedicate far more memory to postgresql. maybe it would be usefull to
> post your postgresql.conf ( this is in fact a postgresql question,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kris,
3.0G
Well there you go then..you're trying to access a file that is larger
than RAM, so naturally you won't be able to fit it all in RAM, and
with 1GB less RAM in your system you'll spend much more time reading
bits of it from disk and later throwing t
Kris,
> > 3.0G
>
> Well there you go then..you're trying to access a file that is larger
> than RAM, so naturally you won't be able to fit it all in RAM, and
> with 1GB less RAM in your system you'll spend much more time reading
> bits of it from disk and later throwing them away.
i know a bit of
Miguel,
> 3.0G
i looked at your top-screenshot, i have the impression you could
dedicate far more memory to postgresql. maybe it would be usefull to
post your postgresql.conf ( this is in fact a postgresql question, but
i don't care ).
you might want to turn fsync off, my limited knowledge about
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 08:52:43AM -0600, Miguel wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Miguel,
> >
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Miguel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
> >>>using the copy command, using the s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miguel,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Miguel wrote:
Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
using the copy command, using the same file and version of postgres in
gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd 6.1-b
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Miguel wrote:
Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
using the copy command, using the same file and version of postgres in
gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd 6.1-beta4 it has
alrea
Miguel,
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Miguel wrote:
> > Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
> > using the copy command, using the same file and version of postgres in
> > gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd 6.1-beta4 it has
> > already
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Miguel wrote:
> Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
> using the copy command, using the same file and version of postgres in
> gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd 6.1-beta4 it has
> already spent 25 minutes
Hi, im loading a lot of information to a postgresql 8.1.3 database, im
using the copy command, using the same file and version of postgres in
gentoo it spend a few minutes (~4-5), in freebsd 6.1-beta4 it has
already spent 25 minutes and the server apparently is doing nothing, and
the reponse ti
28 matches
Mail list logo
