12
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carol Walter
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:35 AM
>> To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
>> Subject: [ADMIN] Performance tuni
Hi Carol,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Carol Walter wrote:
> This has probably been discussed a number of times, but I really need
> your help. I am upgrading from 8.1 to 8.2. Right now I have the
> restore of the database to the new version running. It has been
> running si
On Jan 2, 2008 9:34 AM, Carol Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings and Salutations...
>
> This has probably been discussed a number of times, but I really need
> your help. I am upgrading from 8.1 to 8.2. Right now I have the
> restore of the database to the new version running. It has
t: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:35 AM
> To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> Subject: [ADMIN] Performance tuning...
>
> Greetings and Salutations...
>
> This has probably been discussed a number of times, but I
> really need your help. I am upgrading from 8.1 to 8.2.
>
Greetings and Salutations...
This has probably been discussed a number of times, but I really need
your help. I am upgrading from 8.1 to 8.2. Right now I have the
restore of the database to the new version running. It has been
running since December 21, at 4:30 PM. I'm in a University
06 4:38 PM
> To: Benjamin Krajmalnik> Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org> Subject: RE: [ADMIN] Performance tuning question>>> > isweb01# vmstat 10
> > procs memory pagedisks faults> > cpu> > r b w avmfre flt re pi po fr s
> I just finished running some benchmarks on an underpowered server
> compared to the one I am running in production.
> My initial tests were run on an ampty database, pg_xlog on the same
> spindle.
> Stored procedure execution speed was ~15 ms.
>
> I then restored the production database so I wo
ubject: RE: [ADMIN] Performance tuning question
>
>
> > isweb01# vmstat 10
> > procs memory pagedisks faults
> > cpu
> > r b w avmfre flt re pi po fr sr ad4 ad6 in
> sy cs us
> > sy id
> > 1 0 0 648
> isweb01# vmstat 10
> procs memory pagedisks faults
> cpu
> r b w avmfre flt re pi po fr sr ad4 ad6 in sy cs us
> sy id
> 1 0 0 648368 47052 10322 0 0 0 7505 136 0 0 839 6241 2114
> 18 10 71
> 1 0 0 651392 42464 9823 0 0
n Krajmalnik
> Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Performance tuning question
>
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 02:18 -0600, Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
>
> > I just migrated from PG 8.1.4 Windows to 8.1.4 FreeBSD/i386.
>
> Good move :)
>
> > All of
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 02:18 -0600, Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
> I just migrated from PG 8.1.4 Windows to 8.1.4 FreeBSD/i386.
Good move :)
> All of the data insertion to the database is done via a stored procedure
> call.
> I did some benchmarking, and on an empty database the execution time of
>
I just migrated from PG 8.1.4 Windows to 8.1.4 FreeBSD/i386.
All of the data insertion to the database is done via a stored procedure
call.
I did some benchmarking, and on an empty database the execution time of
the stored procedure was about 5 ms on average.
This was done running via EMS SQL Mana
Hello,
Currently I can get no more than 40k records/second to be copied
in to postgres. This is also the case when running multiple
cocurrent copy in commands from different connections. It
seems linear in that 1 process will copy in at 40k/s and 2
will copy in at about 20k/s, etc.
I need to kno
"Peter T. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regarding the SQL: The query I showed there is built dynamically from a
> library of queries chosen by the application user (using a web gui). For
> now, I don't have any way to intelligently condense the often complex series
> of operations into a si
e files in pg_xlog should never be
used, right?
Thanks Again,
Peter T. Brown
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Peter T. Brown
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] performance tuning on inserts
"Peter T. Bro
"Peter T. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All of my queries rely heavily on doing INSERT INTO. So is there some
> special behavior with insert's, where they are flushed to disk one by one?
> If I simply increase checkpoint_segments to 50 or so would this cause
> inserts to occur only in memor
ter T. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:42 AM
Subject: [ADMIN] performance tuning on inserts
> I'm confused because after implementing much performance tuning advice
I've
> found that postgresql is no faster than when
I'm confused because after implementing much performance tuning advice I've
found that postgresql is no faster than when configured with the factory
defaults. The particular query I used for testing exemplifies the type of
query I need to run often.
All of my queries rely heavily on doing INSERT
Hello,
Can anyone help me with some performance tuning questions...
I have a new dedicated postgresql machine running red hat 7.2 with
postgresql 7.1.3.
The machine is a compaq with dual 1 ghz cpu's, 2gb ram 3 10k ultra3 sci
disks with a compaq raid5 controler. The filesystem is ext3.
There is
19 matches
Mail list logo
