"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Right now the win32 native does
> not sync() (but does fsync()). So, the performance is somewhere between
> fsync = off and fsync = on (probably much closer to fsync = on). It is
> reasonable to assume that the win32 port will outperform the unix
Matthew Nuzum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like some input on a more demanding test though, because these tests
> run so quickly I can't help but be suspicious of their accuracy.
So increase the number of transactions tested (-t switch to pgbench).
Be aware also that you really want -s (data
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:39, Greg Stark wrote:
> "Matthew Nuzum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have colinux running on a Fedora Core 1 image. I have the rhdb 3 (or
> > PostgreSQL RedHat Edition 3) on it running. Here are tests with fsync on
> > and off:
> > FSYNC OFF FSYNC ON
I am investigating whether it is useful to directly query a database
containing a rather large text corpus (order of magnitude 100k - 1m
newspaper articles, so around 100 million words), or whether I should
use third party text indexing services. I want to know things such as:
how often is a certai
"Matthew Nuzum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have colinux running on a Fedora Core 1 image. I have the rhdb 3 (or
> PostgreSQL RedHat Edition 3) on it running. Here are tests with fsync on
> and off:
> FSYNC OFF FSYNC ON RUN
> 136.9 142.0 124.5149.1 1
> 122.1
Is there any crossover in performance with sibling inherited tables?
For Ex.
if I have a parent table called : people
A child of 'people' called: Adults
and
A child of 'people' called: Kids
Does the work I do to Adults, namely copies, huge updates and such ever affect
the performanc
On 2 Jun 2004 at 16:45, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> 'better' does not mean 'faster'. Win32 has a pretty decent journaling
> filesytem (ntfs) and a good I/O subsystem which includes IPC. Process
> management is poor compared to newer linux kernels but this is
> unimportant except in extreme cases.
Hello all,
I have an import function that I have been working on for some time now, and
it performed well up until recently. It is doing a lot, and because the
queries are not cached, I am not sure if that is what the problem is. If a
function takes a while, does it lock any of the tables i
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
> >That said, I'm curious why the emulated servers performed better than
the
> >Native Windows port. My first thought is that they probably aren't
> syncing
> >every write to disk so effectively they're defeating the fsyncs,
allowing
> the
> >host OS to
Greg Stark wrote:
That said, I'm curious why the emulated servers performed better than the
Native Windows port. My first thought is that they probably aren't syncing
every write to disk so effectively they're defeating the fsyncs, allowing the
host OS to buffer disk writes.
I havn't tested it,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm working through the aquisition process for a quad Opteron box right
now. I'll be benchmarking it against a quad processor p630 as well as a
quad Xeon after we get it and posting results here. But that's about a
month or two from now.
I expect that t
Dear reader,
I am investigating whether it is useful to directly query a database
containing a rather large text corpus (order of magnitude 100k - 1m
newspaper articles, so around 100 million words), or whether I should
use third party text indexing services. I want to know things such as:
how of
Folks,
I've been testing varying SPINS_PER_DELAY in a client's installation of
PostgreSQL against a copy of a production database, to test varying this
statistic as a way of fixing the issue.
It does not seem to work.
I've tested all of the following graduated levels:
100 (the original)
25
Hi All,
I think it would actually be interesting to see the performance of the Cygwin version
for these same benchmarks, then we've covered all ways to run PostgreSQL on Windows
systems. (I expect though that performance of Cygwin-PostgreSQL will improve
considerably when an updated version is
I have colinux running on a Fedora Core 1 image. I have the rhdb 3 (or
PostgreSQL RedHat Edition 3) on it running. Here are tests with fsync on
and off:
FSYNC OFF FSYNC ON RUN
136.9142.0 124.5149.1 1
122.1126.7 140.1169.7 2
125.7148.7 147.4
Title: RE: [PERFORM] Trigger & Function
Thanks for the response. I was pretty sure it couldn't be done the way I wanted to but felt I would ask anyway.
Thanks again,
Duane
-Original Message-
From: Mike Nolan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 3:04 PM
To: [EMAI
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That said, I'm curious why the emulated servers performed better than the
> Native Windows port. My first thought is that they probably aren't syncing
> every write to disk so effectively they're defeating the fsyncs, allowing the
> host OS to buffer disk wr
Using VMware myself quite extensively, I wonder what the disk
configuration was that you created for the VM. Where the disks
preallocated and did you make sure that they are contiguous on the NTFS
filesystem? Did you install the VMware tools in the guest operating system?
What did you use to me
V i s h a l Kashyap @ [Sai Hertz And Control Systems] wrote:
Dear all,
Have anyone compiled PostgreSQL with kernel 2.6.x if YES
1. Was their any performance gains
Else
1. Is it possible
2. What problems would keeping us away from compiling on kernel 2.6
We run pgsql on 2.6.6 there was upto 30% impr
Vitaly Belman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With all that said, VMWare is badly suited for running a database,
> while CoLinux can be run as a service (didn't try it yet though),
> VMWare always sits there, it is slow to go up, slow to go down and
> generally feels like a system hog.
Uhm
20 matches
Mail list logo
