Hi All, I want to compare performance of postgresql database with some other database. Somebody must have done some performance testing. Can you pls. share that data (performance figures) with me? And if possible pls. share procedure also, that how you have done the same? Thanks In
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I think Freebsd 'Inactive' corresponds pretty closely to Linux's
'Inactive Dirty'|'Inactive Laundered'|'Inactive Free'.
Hmmm - on second thoughts I think I've got that wrong :-(, since in
Linux all the file buffer pages appear in 'Cached' don't they...
(I also notice
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 08:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:00:34PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
last pid: 5788; load averages: 0.32, 0.31, 0.28
up 127+15:16:08 13:59:24
169 processes: 1 running, 168
On 3/20/06, Craig A. James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen it said here several times that "update == delete + insert". On
> the other hand, I've noticed that "alter table [add|drop] column ..." is
> remarkably fast, even for very large tables, which leads me to wonder whether
> each col
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you haven't explored the COPY command yet, check it out. It is stunningly
> fast compared to normal INSERT commands.
Note also that his "benchmark" is testing multiple INSERTs issued within
a loop in a plpgsql function, which has got nearly nothi
This is a 2-Disk Linux software RAID1 with 2 7200RPM IDE Drives, 1 PATA
and 1 SATA :
apollo13 ~ # hdparm -t /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.02 seconds = 51.58 MB/sec
apollo13 ~ # hdparm -t /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk reads: 168 MB in 3.06 secon
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've seen it said here several times that "update == delete + insert". On
> the other hand, I've noticed that "alter table [add|drop] column ..." is
> remarkably fast, even for very large tables, which leads me to wonder whether
> each column's con
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Miguel wrote:
Umm, in my box i see better seektimes but worst transfer rates, does
it make sense?
i think i have something wrong, the question i cant answer is what
tunning am i missing?
Well, I forgot to mention I have 15k RPM disks, so
On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Miguel wrote:
Umm, in my box i see better seektimes but worst transfer rates,
does it make sense?
i think i have something wrong, the question i cant answer is what
tunning am i missing?
Well, I forgot to mention I have 15k RPM disks, so the transfers
should
Vivek Khera wrote:
If you do put on FreeBSD 6, I'd love to see the output of "diskinfo
- v -t" on your RAID volume(s).
Not directly related ...
i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my
results
[...]
is this good enough?
Is that on a loaded box or a mostly quiet
go with design 1, update does = delete + insert.
-- Original Message ---
From: "Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:49:43 -0800
Subject: [PERFORM] update == delete + insert?
> I've seen it said here several times that
I've seen it said here several times that "update == delete + insert". On the other
hand, I've noticed that "alter table [add|drop] column ..." is remarkably fast, even for
very large tables, which leads me to wonder whether each column's contents are in a file
specifically for that column.
M
If you do put on FreeBSD 6, I'd love to see the output of
"diskinfo - v -t" on your RAID volume(s).
Not directly related ...
i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my
results
[...]
is this good enough?
Is that on a loaded box or a mostly quiet box? Those number se
On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
For my use it was worth the price. However, given the speed increase
of other components since then, I don't think I'd buy one today.
Parallelism (if you can do it like Luke suggested) is the way to go.
Thats an interesting statement. My pe
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 1:51 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i forgot to mention that the 6 discs are in a MSA500 G2 external
storadge, additionally i have two 36G a320 10k in raid 10 for the os
installed in the server slots.
I just checked online and I thi
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 1:51 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i forgot to mention that the 6 discs are in a MSA500 G2 external
> storadge, additionally i have two 36G a320 10k in raid 10 for the os
> installed in the server slots.
I just checked online and I think the MSA500 G2 has it's ow
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Transfer rates:
outside: 102400 kbytes in 2.075984 sec =49326 kbytes/sec
middle:102400 kbytes in 2.100510 sec =48750 kbytes/sec
inside:102400 kbytes in 2.042313 sec =50139 kbytes/sec
I have 6 ultra a320 72G 1
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 1:12 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont know, how can i check?
No matter - it's the benchmark that would tell you, it's probably "access
time" that's being measured even though the text says "seek time". The
difference is that seek time represents only the head
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 12:52 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my results
Another "known bad" RAID controller. The Smartarray 5i is horrible on Linux
- this is the first BSD result I've seen.
Miguel,
On 3/20/06 12:52 PM, "Miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my results
Another "known bad" RAID controller. The Smartarray 5i is horrible on Linux
- this is the first BSD result I've seen.
> Seek times:
> Full strok
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
In summary, my questions:
1. Would running PG on FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x or Linux improve performance?
FreeBSD 6.x will definitely get you improvements. Many speedup
improvements have been made to both the generic disk
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> No, this is perfectly fine. Inactive memory in FreeBSD isn't the same as
> Free. It's the same as 'active' memory except that it's pages that
> haven't been accessed in X amount of time (between 100 and 200 ms, I
> think). When free memory starts getting
> > I like their approach...ddr ram + raid sanity backup + super reliable
> > power system. Their prices are on jupiter (and i dont mean jupiter,
> > fl) but hopefully there will be some competition and the invetible
>
> Nothing unique to them. I have a 4 year old SSD from a now out-of-
> busines
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
In summary, my questions:
1. Would running PG on FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x or Linux improve
performance?
FreeBSD 6.x will definitely get you improvements. Many speedup
improvements have been made to both the generic disk layer and the
speci
I have to say I've been really impressed with the quality and diversity
of tools here to increase performance for PostgreSQL. But I keep seeing
a lot of the same basic things repeated again and again. Has anyone
looked into a "smart" or auto-adjusting resource manager for postgres?
Conside
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Open Source SSD via iSCSI with commodity hardware... hmmm. sounds
like
a useful project.
sh! don't give away our top secret plans!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is yo
On Mar 17, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I like their approach...ddr ram + raid sanity backup + super reliable
power system. Their prices are on jupiter (and i dont mean jupiter,
fl) but hopefully there will be some competition and the invetible
Nothing unique to them. I have a 4
Others are reporting better performance on 8.1.x with very large
shared buffers. You may want to try tweaking that possibly as high as
20% of available memory
Dave
On 20-Mar-06, at 9:59 AM, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
Ok, here's the deal:
I am responisble for an exciting project of evaluating
Marco,
Could you give us the query you would like to improve performance?
- Original Message -
From: "Marco Furetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: [PERFORM] Query Feromance
Hello!
Can I Increment the perfomance of execution query?
Where i
using a 16kb block size (for read performance) will probably be
considered as well.
Hm, this means that when postgres wants to write just one 8k page, the OS
will have to read 16k, replace half of it with the new block, and write
16k again... I guess it should be better to stick with the
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 08:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:00:34PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > last pid: 5788; load averages: 0.32, 0.31, 0.28
> > >up 127+15:16:08 13:59:24
> > > 169 processes: 1 running, 168 sleepi
Mikael,
I've just recently passed such an experience, i.e. migrating from
another vendor to postgres of a DB about the same size category you
have.
I think you got it right with the fsync turned off during migration
(just don't forget to turn it back after finishing ;-), and using tables
without
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
I am responisble for an exciting project of evaluating migration of a
medium/large application for a well-known swedish car&truck manufacturer
... The goal right now is to find the set of parameters that gives as
short bulk insert time as possible, minimizing downtime whi
Hello!
Can I Increment the perfomance of execution query?
Where is the instrument to analyze the query runnnig for create a Index
query for a single optimize that?
thank's
Marco "Furetto" Berri
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below
Ok, here's the deal:
I am responisble for an exciting project of evaluating migration of a
medium/large application for a well-known swedish car&truck manufacturer from a
proprietary DB to Postgres. The size of the database is currently about 50Gb,
annual growth depending on sales, but probably
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:00:34PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > last pid: 5788; load averages: 0.32, 0.31, 0.28
> > up 127+15:16:08 13:59:24
> > 169 processes: 1 running, 168 sleeping
> > CPU states: 5.4% user, 0.0% nice, 9.9% system,
""Ksenia Marasanova"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> The application uses persistant database connection, and when i check
> the status of the connection, it shows: "idle in transaction". I am
> pretty sure that every insert is being committed with explicit
> "commit()" . It always worked before..
Hi,
I have a strange problem with my Postgres application. The problem is
that the data entered in the application never reaches the database,
although the record id (serial) is generated, and the record can be
retrieved again, and be modified. Multiple records can be added and
modified. But when
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
[...]
> > Btw, I use postgres 7.4.5 with -B 1000 -N 500 and all
> > postgresql.conf default values except timezone = 'UTC', on an
> > ext3 partition with data=ordered, and run Linux 2.6.12.
>
> I didn't see any mention of how much m
Guillaume,
Thanks for your answer.
> On 17 Mar 2006 11:09:50 +0100, Guillaume Cottenceau
> wrote:
> > Reading the documentation and postgresql list archives, I have
> > run ANALYZE right before my tests, I have increased the
> > statistics target to 50 for the considered table; my problem is
> >
40 matches
Mail list logo
