On 26 November 2010 03:00, Greg Smith wrote:
> Two suggestions to improve your results here:
>
> 1) Don't set shared_buffers to 10GB. There are some known issues with large
> settings for that which may or may not be impacting your results. Try 4GB
> instead, just to make sure you're not even o
Ivan Voras wrote:
PostgreSQL 9.0.1, 10 GB shared buffers, using pgbench with a scale
factor of 500 (7.5 GB database)
with pgbench -S (SELECT-queries only) the performance curve is:
-c#result
433549
864864
1279491
1679887
2066957
2452576
2850406
3249491
40
> I am not facing any issues, but yes I want to have optimal performance for
> SELECT and INSERT, especially when I am doing these ops repeatedly.
> Actually I am porting from Oracle to PG. Oracle starts a lot of processes
> when
> it needs to run many schemas. I do not think PG would need much mor
I am not facing any issues, but yes I want to have optimal performance for
SELECT and INSERT, especially when I am doing these ops repeatedly.
Actually I am porting from Oracle to PG. Oracle starts a lot of processes when
it needs to run many schemas. I do not think PG would need much more resour
On 11/22/10 18:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
It looks like a hack
Not to everyone. In the referenced section, Hellerstein,
Stonebraker and Hamilton say:
"any good multi-user system has an admission control policy"
In the case of PostgreSQL I understand the counter-argument,
> On Thursday 25 November 2010 13:02:08 t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
>> I don't think you'll get performance improvement from running two
>> PostgreSQL clusters (one for DB1, one for DB2). And when running two
>> databases within the same cluster, there's no measurable performance
>> difference AFAIK.
> Th
On Thursday 25 November 2010 13:02:08 t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
> I don't think you'll get performance improvement from running two
> PostgreSQL clusters (one for DB1, one for DB2). And when running two
> databases within the same cluster, there's no measurable performance
> difference AFAIK.
That one i
> I don't think it will make a big difference in performance.
>
> The real question is: do you need queries that "cross boundaries"? If that
> is the case you have to use schema, because Postgres does not support
> cross-database queries.
Well, there's dblink contrib module, but that won't improve
Divakar Singh, 25.11.2010 12:37:
Hello Friends,
I have many instances of my software running on a server (Solaris SPARC). Each
software instance requires some DB tables (same DDL for all instances' tables)
to store data.
It essentially means that some processes from each instance of the softwar
Hello,
> Now, should I put these tables in 1 Database's different schemas or in
> separate
> databases itself for good performance?
> I am using libpq for connection.
>
> Pictorial Representation:
>
> Process1 -> DB1.schema1.table1
>
> Process2 -> DB1.schema2.table1
>
> Vs.
>
> Process1 -> DB1.d
Hello Friends,
I have many instances of my software running on a server (Solaris SPARC). Each
software instance requires some DB tables (same DDL for all instances' tables)
to store data.
It essentially means that some processes from each instance of the software
connect to these tables.
Now, sh
11 matches
Mail list logo
