Re: [GENERAL] more anti-postgresql FUD

2006-10-11 Thread alexei . vladishev
Hello, I'm author and maintainer of ZABBIX and the manual. I would like to add some comments to the thread. First of all, ZABBIX supports three database engines: MySQL, Oracle and PostgreSQL. It uses absolutely standard SQL, same for all three database engines. We have absolutely no intention to

Re: [GENERAL] more anti-postgresql FUD

2006-10-13 Thread alexei . vladishev
> > 1. create table test (id int4, aaa int4, primary key (id)); > > 2. insert into test values (0,1); > > 3. Execute "update test set aaa=1 where id=0;" in an endless loop > > > > I just did the test on PostgreSQL 7.4.12 and MySQL 5.0.22 (MyISAM, > > sorry had no configured InnoDB). Ubuntu 6.0.6, A

Re: [GENERAL] more anti-postgresql FUD

2006-10-13 Thread alexei . vladishev
> > I'm author and maintainer of ZABBIX and the manual. I would like to add > > some comments to the thread. > > just so you know, I brought this up after taking a look at the zabbix > software, which is in my opinion very excellent. I came across a > little strong in my comments and peter e was c

Re: [GENERAL] more anti-postgresql FUD

2006-10-13 Thread alexei . vladishev
> > Unfortunately PostgreSQL performs much slower than MySQL doing large > > number of updates for one single table. By its nature ZABBIX requires > > to execute hundreds of updates per second for large installations. > > PostgreSQL cannot handle this nicely. > > If you refuse to vacuum (or have th

Re: [GENERAL] more anti-postgresql FUD

2006-10-13 Thread alexei . vladishev
> it would be cool if you could at least: > > - bundle your updates into transactions of, say, 1000 updates at a time >i.e. wrap a BEGIN; END; around a 1000 of them > - run postgresql with fsync off, since you're using MyISAM > - run PostgreSQL at least 8, since you're running MySQL 5 > > I'

[GENERAL] Multiple buffer cache?

2010-02-06 Thread Alexei Vladishev
Greetings, Is there a way of configuring PostgreSQL so that one specific table would use, say, 4GB of buffer cache while other tables would use the rest? I would like to keep the table and its indexes always in "hot" state, so that other queries won't pollute this part of the buffer cache. It

Re: [GENERAL] Multiple buffer cache?

2010-02-06 Thread Alexei Vladishev
Bret, Thank you for your response! Greetings, Is there a way of configuring PostgreSQL so that one specific table would use, say, 4GB of buffer cache while other tables would use the rest? I would like to keep the table and its indexes always in "hot" state, so that other queries won't pollut

Re: [GENERAL] Multiple buffer cache?

2010-02-11 Thread Alexei Vladishev
Greg, Let's look at this from an application developer perspective. Suppose my application has a few hundreds of tables. I know _very_well_ how the tables are used. I'd like to tune PostgreSQL so that it would respect how the application works in order to get best possible performance. My da

Re: [GENERAL] Multiple buffer cache?

2010-02-11 Thread Alexei Vladishev
Greg, Alexei Vladishev wrote: Is there a way of configuring PostgreSQL so that one specific table would use, say, 4GB of buffer cache while other tables would use the rest? It sounds like you're looking for what other databases call "pinning". It's not supported in

Re: [GENERAL] Multiple buffer cache?

2010-02-11 Thread Alexei Vladishev
Bret, And then, even if the support is there, you'd need to outline exactly how you're planning on pushing this button. Specifically, what's your usage pattern that would make this a win for you? Let me explain. I have a very busy application generating thousands of SQLs per second. The