Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum

2010-11-18 Thread kuopo
Hi, Thanks for your response. I've checked it again and found that the main cause is the execution of ANALYZE. As I have mentioned, I have two tables: table A is a big one (around 10M~100M records) for log data and table B is a small one (around 1k records) for keeping some current status. There a

Re: [PERFORM] Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

2010-11-18 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane wrote: > I have no idea how much memory SQL Server thinks it can use Hmmm... That triggered an old memory -- when we were running SQL Server on Windows there was some registry setting which we tweaked to prevent the OS from trying to cache disk I/O. (Sorry I don't remember the name

Re: [PERFORM] Low disk performance?

2010-11-18 Thread tv
Hi, what is the size of the table and index (in terms of pages and tuples)? Try something like SELECT relpages, reltuples FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'table or index name'; And what indexes have you created? It seems to me there's just index on the variable_id. It might be useful to create inde

[PERFORM] Low disk performance?

2010-11-18 Thread Martin Chlupac
Hello everybody, having this SQL query: -- select variable_id,float_value,ts,good_through,interval,datetime_value,string_value,int_value,blob_value,history_value_type from "records_437954e9-e048-43de-bde3-057658966a9f" where variable_id in (22727) and (ts >= '2010-10-02 11:19:55' or g

[PERFORM] executor stats / page reclaims

2010-11-18 Thread Uwe Bartels
Hi, I'm experiencing extremely different response times for some complex pgsql functions. extremly different means from 20ms - 500ms and up to 20s. I have to say that the complete database fits in memory (64GB). shared_buffers is set to 16GB. the rest ist used by thefs cache and conections/work_me