On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Francisco Olarte
wrote:
> Hi Sébastien:
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Sébastien Lorion
> wrote:
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but will it not also suffer the same
> > limitation as any statement based replication, namely
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Keith Fiske wrote:
> Not sure if this will work for you, but sharing a similar scenario in case
> it may work for you.
>
> An extension I wrote provides similar logical replication as you've
> probably seen in other tools.
> https://github.com/omniti-labs/mimeo
> O
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kevin Goess wrote:
> > So my conclusion is that for now, the best way to scale read-only
> queries for a sharded master is to
> > implement map-reduce at the application level.
>
> That's the conclusion I would expect. It's the price you pay for sharding,
> it's p
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
> I have a master database sharded by user_id, with globally unique IDs for
> everything, except shared configuration data stored in global tables
> (resources strings, system parameters, etc).
>
> What would be the best (i
I have a master database sharded by user_id, with globally unique IDs for
everything, except shared configuration data stored in global tables
(resources strings, system parameters, etc).
What would be the best (ie both fast and reliable, simple to maintain as a
bonus) to merge all shards into a s
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Sébastien Lorion <
> s...@thestrangefactory.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Clemens Eisserer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>&
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If you really want ZFS, I would highly recommend looking into
> > FreeBSD (Postgresql works great on it) or if you want to stick with
> Linux,
> > look into mdadm with LVM or some other filesystem solution.
>
> If you want to use
as I know. If I had to choose
> an OS to use ZFS with, I'd go with
> either FreeBSD or Solaris. That said, I am biased to FreeBSD anyway;
> the only Linux installation that I
> own is the one in my Android phone, while I own several FreeBSD systems.
>
> >
ell because it has sync=disabled, which is risky to
say the least ...
>
>
> On 16/01/2014 11:57, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Sébastien Lorion <
> s...@thestrangefactory.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Since ZFS on Linux
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since ZFS on Linux (http://zfsonlinux.org/) has been declared production
> ready last March (v0.6.1), I am curious if anyone is using it with
> PostgreSQL on production servers (either main or backup) and if so,
Hello,
Since ZFS on Linux (http://zfsonlinux.org/) has been declared production
ready last March (v0.6.1), I am curious if anyone is using it with
PostgreSQL on production servers (either main or backup) and if so, what is
their experience so far ?
Thank you,
Sébastien
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Some Developer
wrote:
> You are forgetting that you can execute a query asynchronously using libpq
> therefore the app server can continue serving requests whilst the database
> server chugs away on its work. You just poll the server every now and again
> to see if
The tool to tweak the query planner parameters mentioned in the article
sounds very useful. Can we download it somewhere, either as binary or
source code ?
Sébastien
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Daniel Bausch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK there is no such thing in the code or documentation.
> Never
2012 à 01:33 -0400, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Since Amazon has added new high I/O instance types and EBS volumes,
>> > anyone has done some benchmark of PostgreSQL on them ?
>> >
>>
>> I wonder : is there a reason why you
-sharedbuffers-and-walbuffers.html
Sébastien
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/13/12 2:08 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> I started db creation over, this time with 16GB maintenance_work_mem and
>> fsync=off and it does not seem to have a great effect. A
:29 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/12/12 10:01 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> pgbench initialization has been going on for almost 5 hours now and still
>> stuck before vacuum starts .. something is definitely wrong as I don't
>> remember it took so lon
maintenance_work_mem is already 4GB. How large should it be during load
then ?
Sébastien
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:29 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/12/12 10:01 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> pgbench initialization has been going on for almost 5 hours now and still
>> s
1 200 2151M 76876K select 1 0:09 0.00% postgres
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> I recreated the DB and WAL pools, and launched pgbench -i -s 1. Here
> are the stats during the load (still running):
>
> *iostat (xbd13-14 are WAL zpool)*
&g
Forgot to say that this is it with new values suggested (see included
postgresql.conf) and ARC cache size set to 32GB.
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> I recreated the DB and WAL pools, and launched pgbench -i -s 1. Here
> are the stats during th
:45
32 processes: 2 running, 30 sleeping
CPU: 10.3% user, 0.0% nice, 7.8% system, 1.2% interrupt, 80.7% idle
Mem: 26M Active, 19M Inact, 33G Wired, 16K Cache, 25M Buf, 33G Free
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
>
> One more question .. I could not set wal_sync_met
databases (errors about pg_xlog directories not found, etc) at first when
running my tests, and I suspect it was because of
vfs.zfs.cache_flush_disable=1, though I cannot prove it for sure.
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> Is dedicating 2 drives for WAL
Is dedicating 2 drives for WAL too much ? Since my whole raid is comprised
of SSD drives, should I just put it in the main pool ?
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> Ok, make sense .. I will update that as well and report back. Thank you
> for your
Ok, make sense .. I will update that as well and report back. Thank you for
your advice.
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/12/12 4:49 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> You set shared_buffers way below what is suggested in Greg Smith book
>&g
to at
least prepare a bit, without overdoing it, of course..
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/12/12 4:03 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> I agree 1GB is a lot, I played around with that value, but it hardly
>> makes a difference. Is ther
12, 2012 at 7:24 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/12/12 4:03 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> I agree 1GB is a lot, I played around with that value, but it hardly
>> makes a difference. Is there a plateau in how that value affects query
>> performance ? On a master DB, I wo
max_connections ?
I will run a test again and let you know how is the IO. Might also run
bonnie++ to see if the raid performs as expected...
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, François Beausoleil
wrote:
>
> Le 2012-09-12 à 17:08, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :
>
> > As you can see, I
configuration with fsync off, which I will use for
read-only databases.
Many thanks!
Sébastien
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 08/23/12 11:24 AM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> I think both kind of tests (general and app specific) are complementary
>> and usefu
Hello,
When doing the setup for a benchmark of pgsql on an High IO instance of
Amazon, I got the following problem and was wondering if it is expected:
On FreeBSD 9.0 amd64, I installed PostgreSQL 9.1.5 on the boot drive (UFS),
created a ZFS pool using the 2 SSD drives (tank/db), chown pgsql tank
AM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
>
>> I think both kind of tests (general and app specific) are complementary
>> and useful in their own way. At a minimum, if the general ones fail, why go
>> to the expenses of doing the specific ones ? Setting up a meaningful
>> application t
I think both kind of tests (general and app specific) are complementary and
useful in their own way. At a minimum, if the general ones fail, why go to
the expenses of doing the specific ones ? Setting up a meaningful
application test can take a lot of time and it can be hard to pinpoint
exactly whe
e provided useful
answers, for which I am very grateful.
p.s. My name is not "dude" or "seb", we have not raised the pigs together
...
Sébastien
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Vincent Veyron wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 août 2012 à 13:30 -0400, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :
> &g
Vincent, I would appreciate that you stop assuming things based on zero
information about what I am doing. I understand that you are trying to be
helpful, but I can assure you that going bare-metal only does not make any
sense in my context.
Sébastien
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Vincent Vey
an application that already has hundreds of
> users after all, I did oversee that option.
>
> To Sébastien : please use 'reply all' to send your reply to the list
>
> Le mardi 21 août 2012 à 10:29 -0400, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :
> Could you elaborate on the comple
Hello,
Since Amazon has added new high I/O instance types and EBS volumes, anyone
has done some benchmark of PostgreSQL on them ?
http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/07/20/IOPerformanceNoLongerSucksInTheCloud.aspx
http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/08/01/EBSProvisionedIOPSOptimizedInstanceTy
Short answer: no. Even with a good auto-layout, nothing (up to now) beats a
human made one because the latter will incorporate semantic which is not
available to the modeling tool; for example, positioning, spacing and
routing of relations will respect some sense of aesthetic and organization
that
Concerning auto-layout, most if not all tools I have used up to now make a
mess for anything that is not dead simple. One exception I found is
Embarcadero Data Architect (
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/er-studio-data-architect). It's not
free, but there is a trial you can use and then you can
36 matches
Mail list logo
