Re: [PERFORM] Postgres performance

2009-10-04 Thread Gerd Koenig
Hi, there are several performance related issues, thereby it's rather difficult to answer your question shortly. You have to keep in mind not only postgres itself, hardware is also an important factor. Do you have performance problems, which you can describe more detailed ? regards..GERD..

Re: [PERFORM] Confusion on shared buffer

2009-10-04 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind arvindw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Robert, So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be noted for performance. Tough to say without benchmarking, but

Re: [PERFORM] Best suiting OS

2009-10-04 Thread Mark Mielke
On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote: I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise (except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely). On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular well supported release for Production. IMHO, that's RHEL

Re: [PERFORM] Best suiting OS

2009-10-04 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: RHEL and CentOS are particular bad *right now*. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS For RHEL, look down to Release History and RHEL 5.3 based on Linux-2.6.18, released March, 2007.

Re: [PERFORM] Best suiting OS

2009-10-04 Thread david
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Devrim G?ND?Z wrote: On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: RHEL and CentOS are particular bad *right now*. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS For RHEL, look down to Release History and RHEL 5.3 based

[PERFORM] Speed / Server

2009-10-04 Thread anthony
All: We have a web-application which is growing ... fast. We're currently running on (1) quad-core Xeon 2.0Ghz with a RAID-1 setup, and 8GB of RAM. Our application collects a lot of sensor data, which means that we have 1 table which has about 8 million rows, and we're adding about 2.5 million

Re: [PERFORM] Speed / Server

2009-10-04 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:45 PM, anth...@resolution.com wrote: All: We have a web-application which is growing ... fast.  We're currently running on (1) quad-core Xeon 2.0Ghz with a RAID-1 setup, and 8GB of RAM. Our application collects a lot of sensor data, which means that we have 1 table

Re: [PERFORM] Best suiting OS

2009-10-04 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote: On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote: I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise (except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely). On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a

Re: [PERFORM] Bad performance of SELECT ... where id IN (...)

2009-10-04 Thread Omar Kilani
Hi Xia, Try this patch: http://treehou.se/~omar/postgresql-8.4.1-array_sel_hack.patch It's a hack, but it works for us. I think you're probably spending most of your query time planning, and this patch helps speed things up 10x over here. Regards, Omar On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Xia

Maybe OT, not sure Re: [PERFORM] Best suiting OS

2009-10-04 Thread Mark Mielke
This is kind of OT, unless somebody really is concerned with understanding the + and - of distributions, and is willing to believe the content of this thread as being accurate and objective... :-) On 10/04/2009 08:42 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Mark