[PERFORM] Need help on parameters and their values to tune the postgresql database

2007-12-11 Thread Bebarta, Simanchala
Hi, I am doing a performance benchmarking test by using benchmarkSQL tool on postgresql 8.2.4.I need to tune the parameters to achieve an optimal performance of the postgresql database. I have installed postgresql 8.2.4 on RHEL AS4. It is a DELL Optiplex GX620 PC with 4GB RAM. Please suggest me

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Michael Stone wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:27:39PM +1200, kelvan wrote: I have also learnt and also Richard pointed out just not in so many words the difference in support from a open source community compared to a non open source company is that the people who give support in open source

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:27:39PM +1200, kelvan wrote: I have also learnt and also Richard pointed out just not in so many words the difference in support from a open source community compared to a non open source company is that the people who give support in open source are opinionated rathe

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Greg Smith
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, kelvan wrote: my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_- In addition to the documentation links people have already suggested, I'd also suggest http://andreas.s

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread kelvan
Ok thx I have got it thx to David and Scott for the links I now know why I couldn't find them as I was looking for blocks rather than page damn synonyms and to Eric thx for the criticism but yea I failed English so I know my punctuation is bad unless I concentrate and I am to busy to do that

Re: [PERFORM] TB-sized databases

2007-12-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:45 -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 06 December 2007 04:38, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I think you're completly overlooking the effect of disk latency has on > > > query times. We run queries all the time that can vary from 4 hours to > > > 12 hours in time based so

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Richard Huxton
kelvan wrote: you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a temporary piece of shit my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_- overhead information i would t

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Erik Jones
On Dec 11, 2007, at 5:18 PM, kelvan wrote: you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a temporary piece of shit my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_-

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Scott Marlowe
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage.html On Dec 11, 2007 5:18 PM, kelvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a > temporary piece of shit > > my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no > one

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
kelvan wrote: I wonder where did all the punctuation symbols on your keyboard went. Your email is amazingly hard to read. > overhead information i would to know is row overheads column overheads and > header overheads for blocks and anything else i have missed As for storage overhead, see here:

Re: [PERFORM] database tuning

2007-12-11 Thread kelvan
you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a temporary piece of shit my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_- overhead information i would to know is row ove

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I can find no such text in our documentation at all, nor any reference >> to OpenBabel. I think Craig must be looking at someone else's >> documentation. > It's actually 33.9.6 and it is in: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/xfunc-c.html#

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Gregory Stark
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote: > >> This should be amended to say, >> >> "To be precise, a non-threaded, shared library needs to be created." > > Just before someone goes ahead and writes it (which is probably a good i

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote: Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintainers could update the Postgres manual. In chapter 32.9.6, it says, "To be precise, a shared library needs to

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:25:08 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote: > >> Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintaine

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote: >> Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintainers could >> update the Postgres manual. In chapter 32.9.6, it says, >> >> "To be precise, a shared library needs to be cre

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Please show that stuff you snipped --- it might have some relevant >> information. The stack trace looks a bit like a threading problem... > Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1". That's pretty suspicious, but not quite a smoking gun.

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Craig James wrote: >> Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be >> linked to Postgres? > Absolutely not. The problem is that you get into library-interaction bugs like the one discussed here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>>...Since you've now shown that OpenBabel is > >>>multithreaded, then that's a much more likely cause. > >>Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be > >>linked to Postgres? > > > >Absolu

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Tom Lane wrote: Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.5-15.fc6rh) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Alvaro Herrera wrote: ...Since you've now shown that OpenBabel is multithreaded, then that's a much more likely cause. Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be linked to Postgres? Absolutely not. Ok, thanks, I'll work on recompiling OpenBabel without thread support.

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.5-15.fc6rh) > Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are > welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. > [snip

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig James wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Craig James wrote: >>> Alvaro Herrera wrote: Craig James wrote: > Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a > third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the > ordinary way. I suspect that

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Craig James wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Craig James wrote: Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc() code that's

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig James wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Craig James wrote: >> >>> Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a >>> third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the >>> ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc() >>> code that's wal

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Craig James wrote: Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc() code that's walking over memory that regular malloc()

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig James wrote: > Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a > third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the > ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc() > code that's walking over memory that regular malloc() allocates. The >

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Tom Lane wrote: Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions in a shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora Core 6 and gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the server, the serverlog gets this

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions in a > shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora Core 6 and > gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the server, the serverlog > gets this message: >

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Craig James
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Craig James wrote: This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions in a shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora Core 6 and gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the server, the serverlog gets this message: *** g

[PERFORM] Slow Query

2007-12-11 Thread Pallav Kalva
Hi, This below query is taking more than 3 minutes to run, as you can see from the explain plan it is pretty much using all the indexes still it is slow, nested loops are taking too long. Is there anyway I can improve this query performance ? I am using postgres8.2.4. Here are the number

[PERFORM] Is it spam or not?

2007-12-11 Thread Manolo _
RE: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b18776) > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:02:14 -0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b18776) > > > A mensagem de

Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG

2007-12-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Manolo _ wrote: I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time spent, #of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement Selection (external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm going to implement. I'm new on PG, I just had the idea of how to p

[PERFORM] Is it spam or not?

2007-12-11 Thread Manolo _
The subject of the email: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b16f55) > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:40:37 -0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b16f5

Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG

2007-12-11 Thread Manolo _
Hi Josh! Thanks for your reply. Actually I forgot to mention PGBench, sorry. But I also forgot to mention I'm looking for an "impartial"... I mean "outer" tool to test PG. Any suggestion, please? Regards. > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:16:02 -0700 > From

Re: [PERFORM] libgcc double-free, backend won't die

2007-12-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig James wrote: > This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions > in a shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora > Core 6 and gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the > server, the serverlog gets this message: > > *** glibc detected

Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking PG

2007-12-11 Thread Josh Tolley
On Dec 11, 2007 4:06 AM, Manolo _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi to all. > > I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time > spent, #of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement > Selection (external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm g

[PERFORM] Benchmarking PG

2007-12-11 Thread Manolo _
Hi to all. I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time spent, #of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement Selection (external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm going to implement. I'm new on PG, I just had the idea of how to possib