On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:13:05 -0500, Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have a RAID5 array (mdadm) with 14 disks + 1 spare. This partition has
an Ext3 filesystem which is used by Postgres. Currently we are loading a
50G database on this server from a Postgres dump (copy, not ins
I would recommend running a bonnie++ benchmark on your array to see if
it's the array/controller/raid being crap, or wether it's postgres. I
have had some very surprising results from arrays that theoretically
should be fast, but turned out to be very slow.
I would also seriously have to recommen
Look for the possibility that a foreign key check might not be using an
index. This would yield a seq scan for each insertion, which might be your
problem.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:22:56 -0500, Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Many thanks for all the response.
I guess there are
My web app does lots of inserts that aren't read until a session is
complete. The plan is to put the heavy insert session onto a ramdisk
based pg-db and transfer the relevant data to the master pg-db upon
session completion. Currently running 7.4.6.
From what you say I'd think you want to a
A,
> This is a Sun e450 with dual TI UltraSparc II processors and 2G of RAM.
> It is currently running Debian Sarge with a 2.4.27-sparc64-smp custom
> compiled kernel. Postgres is installed from the Debian package and uses
> all the configuration defaults.
Please read http://www.powerpostgresql.c
Many thanks for all the response.
I guess there are a lot of things to change and tweak and I wonder what
would be a good benchmarking sample dataset (size, contents).
My tables are very large (the smallest is 7+ mil records) and take
several days to load (if not weeks). It would be nice to have
Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> How are you measuring that write rate (seeing that pg_restore doesn't
>> provide any such info)?
> Well, if the restore is going on for X number of hours and you have Y
> records loaded, it's not hard to ballpark.
Yeah, but how
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:29:11PM -0500, Arshavir Grigorian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >The defaults are made for a fairly small machine, not big iron. At a
> >minimum you want to kick shared_buffers up to 10K or more.
> >
> Will do. Thanks.
Also, it may help that you bump up sort_mem while doi
Tom Lane wrote:
Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a RAID5 array (mdadm) with 14 disks + 1 spare. This partition has
an Ext3 filesystem which is used by Postgres. Currently we are loading a
50G database on this server from a Postgres dump (copy, not insert) and
are experiencing v
Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a RAID5 array (mdadm) with 14 disks + 1 spare. This partition has
> an Ext3 filesystem which is used by Postgres. Currently we are loading a
> 50G database on this server from a Postgres dump (copy, not insert) and
> are experiencing very slow
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
[ snip ]
COPY would be my recommendation. For a no-programming-effort solution
you could just pipe the output of pg_dump --data-only -t mytable
into psql. Not sure if it's worth developing a custom application to
replace that.
I'm a programming-effort kind of
Hi,
I have a RAID5 array (mdadm) with 14 disks + 1 spare. This partition has
an Ext3 filesystem which is used by Postgres. Currently we are loading a
50G database on this server from a Postgres dump (copy, not insert) and
are experiencing very slow write performance (35 records per second).
Top sho
> this seems
> like a dead waste of effort :-(. The work to put the data into the main
> database isn't lessened at all; you've just added extra work to manage
> the buffer database.
True from the view point of the server, but not from the throughput in the
client session (client viewpoint). The
I'll post there concerning how they determine the query execution time vs. data retrieval time.
I did think about the processor/memory when choosing the machines - all three of the processors are similar. All are Pentium P4s with 512 MB memory.
the server is Win2K, P4, 2.3 gHz
the local networ
jelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) on a single 7.4.6 postgres instance does each database have it own WAL
> file or is that shared? Is it the same on 8.0.x?
Shared.
> 2) what's the high performance way of moving 200 rows between similar
> tables on different databases? Does it matter
"Lou O'Quin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Tom. I referenced the status line of pgAdmin. Per the pgAdmin help
> file:
>
> "The status line will show how long the last query took to complete. If a
> dataset was returned, not only the elapsed time for server execution is
> displayed, but also th
Hello All,
I have a couple of questions about running 2 databases:
1) on a single 7.4.6 postgres instance does each database have it own WAL
file or is that shared? Is it the same on 8.0.x?
2) what's the high performance way of moving 200 rows between similar
tables on different databases? Do
Hi Tom. I referenced the status line of pgAdmin. Per the pgAdmin help file:
"The status line will show how long the last query took to complete. If a dataset was returned, not only the elapsed time for server execution is displayed, but also the time to retrieve the data from the server to th
"Lou O'Quin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it appears to actually be hypersensitive to the transport delay. The =
> ratios of time for the data transport (assuming 1 for the local server) =
> are:
> 1 : 2.43 : 7.71
> whereas the query execution time ratios are:
> 1 : 2.08 : 25.5 (!!!)
How do you
As a test, I ran a query in the pgAdmin query tool, which returns about 15K records from a PostgreSQL v8.01 table on my Win2K server.I ran the same query from the local server, from another PC on the same 100 mbit local network, and from a PC on a different network, over the internet. The times fo
Hi all,
I'm preparing a set of servers which will eventually need to handle a high
volume of queries (both reads and writes, but most reads are very simple
index-based queries returning a limited set of rows, when not just one),
and I would like to optimize things as much as possible, so I have
Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Hi all,
Is the number of rows in explain the number of rows that is expected to be
visited or retrieved?
Groeten,
Joost Kraaijeveld
Askesis B.V.
Molukkenstraat 14
6524NB Nijmegen
tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277
fax: 024-3608416
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.askesis.nl
Hi all,
Is the number of rows in explain the number of rows that is expected to be
visited or retrieved?
Groeten,
Joost Kraaijeveld
Askesis B.V.
Molukkenstraat 14
6524NB Nijmegen
tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277
fax: 024-3608416
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.askesis.nl
ALÝ ÇELÝK wrote:
why this query needs more time? Its very slow
Difficult to say for sure - could you provide the output of EXPLAIN
ANALYSE rather than just EXPLAIN?
Some other immediate observations:
1. Perhaps don't post to so many mailing lists at once. If you reply to
this, maybe reduce it t
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Hugo Ferreira wrote:
Hi there!
I think I may have a problem with the statistics in my postgresql 8.0
running under Windowx XP. When I view both pg_stat_all_tables and
pg_stat_all_indexes, all the numeric columns that should hold the
statistics are 0 (zero). My configuration fil
Hi there!
I think I may have a problem with the statistics in my postgresql 8.0
running under Windowx XP. When I view both pg_stat_all_tables and
pg_stat_all_indexes, all the numeric columns that should hold the
statistics are 0 (zero). My configuration file has the following:
stats_start_collect
Karim Nassar wrote:
Thanks to all for the tips.
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 09:26 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
How critical is your data? How update heavy versus read heavy, etc are you?
Large, relatively infrequent uploads, with frequent reads. The
application is a web front-end to scientific research
27 matches
Mail list logo
