On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 04/09/2011 01:23 PM, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
Maybe, in a future release, somebody will develop something that can
create indexes as inactive and have a build tool build and activate them at
the same time. Food for
Hi Thomas,
Here is the plan after explain.
QUERY PLAN
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 04/09/2011 01:23 PM, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
Maybe, in a future release, somebody will develop something that can
create indexes as inactive
Scott Marlowe wrote:
FYI, in 8.3.13 I get this for all but one index:
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 24488 waits for ShareLock on virtual transaction
64/825033; blocked by process 27505.
Process 27505 waits for ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on relation 297369165
of database 278059474;
Anne Rosset aros...@collab.net wrote:
- Index Scan using role_oper_obj_oper
on role_operation (cost=0.00..93.20 rows=45 width=9) (actual
time=0.236..71.291 rows=6108 loops=1)
Index Cond:
(((object_type_id)::text =
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
FYI, in 8.3.13 I get this for all but one index:
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 24488 waits for ShareLock on virtual transaction
64/825033; blocked by process 27505.
Process 27505 waits
Hi Guys,
I'm just doing some tests on a new server running one of our heavy select
functions (the select part of a plpgsql function to allocate seats)
concurrently. We do use connection pooling and split out some selects to slony
slaves, but the tests here are primeraly to test what an
Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The new server uses 4 x 8 core Xeon X7550 CPUs at 2Ghz
Which has hyperthreading.
our current servers are 2 x 4 core Xeon E5320 CPUs at 2Ghz.
Which doesn't have hyperthreading.
PostgreSQL often performs worse with hyperthreading than without.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:15 -0500, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The new server uses 4 x 8 core Xeon X7550 CPUs at 2Ghz
Which has hyperthreading.
our current servers are 2 x 4 core Xeon E5320 CPUs at 2Ghz.
Which
On 04/09/2011 11:28 AM, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a way to build these indexes in parallel
while reading the table only once for all indexes and building them
all at the same time. Is there an index build tool that I missed
somehow, that can do this?
I threw together a
--- On Mon, 11/4/11, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
From: Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
To: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Glyn Astill
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:15 -0500, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The new server uses 4 x 8 core Xeon X7550 CPUs at 2Ghz
Which has hyperthreading.
Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
FYI, in 8.3.13 I get this for all but one index:
ERROR: deadlock detected
Is that trying to build them by hand? The upthread request here is actually
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
FYI, in 8.3.13 I get this for all but one index:
ERROR: deadlock detected
Is that
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/4/11, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
From: Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
To: Kevin Grittner
--- On Mon, 11/4/11, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Just FYI, in synthetic pgbench type benchmarks, a 48 core
AMD Magny
Cours with LSI HW RAID and 34 15k6 Hard drives scales
almost linearly
up to 48 or so threads, getting into the 7000+ tps
range. With SW
RAID it gets into
On 04/11/2011 02:32 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Joshua D. Drakej...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:15 -0500, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Glyn Astillglynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The new server uses 4 x 8 core Xeon
On 2011-04-11 21:42, Glyn Astill wrote:
I'll have to try with the synthetic benchmarks next then, but somethings
definately going off here. I'm seeing no disk activity at all as they're
selects and all pages are in ram.
Well, if you dont have enough computations to be bottlenecked on the
--- On Mon, 11/4/11, da...@lang.hm da...@lang.hm wrote:
From: da...@lang.hm da...@lang.hm
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
To: Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com
Cc: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com, Joshua D. Drake
j...@commandprompt.com, Kevin Grittner
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/11/2011 02:32 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Joshua D. Drakej...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:15 -0500, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Glyn Astillglynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A wild guess is something like multiple cores contending for cpu cache, cpu
affinity, or some kind of contention in the kernel, alas a little out of my
depth.
It's pretty sickening to think I can't get anything else
Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The issue I'm seeing is that 8 real cores outperform 16 real
cores, which outperform 32 real cores under high concurrency.
With every benchmark I've done of PostgreSQL, the knee in the
performance graph comes right around ((2 * cores) +
--- On Mon, 11/4/11, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov, Joshua D. Drake
GA == Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
GA I was hoping someone had seen this sort of behaviour before,
GA and could offer some sort of explanation or advice.
Jesper's reply is probably most on point as to the reason.
I know that recent Opterons use some of their cache to better
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I don't know why you were hitting the knee sooner than I've seen
in my benchmarks
If you're compiling your own executable, you might try boosting
LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS (defined in lwlocks.h) to 5 or 6. The
current value of 4 means that
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The new server uses 4 x 8 core Xeon X7550 CPUs at 2Ghz, our current servers
are 2 x 4 core Xeon E5320 CPUs at 2Ghz.
What I'm seeing is when the number of clients is greater than the number of
cores, the new servers
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Saurabh Agrawal saurabh.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I have setup postgres 9 master slave streaming replication but
experiencing slave lagging sometimes by 50 min to 60 min. I am not
getting exact reason for slave lag delay. Below are the details:
1. Master
Dear ,all
plz could any one help me !!!
how explian works as math equations to estimate cost with constatn query
parameters
such as cpu_tuple cost ,random page cost ...etc
i want maths expression in order to know how these parameters will effect in
cost ???
please any one can help me ??
how explian works as math equations to estimate cost with constatn query
parameters
such as cpu_tuple cost ,random page cost ...etc
i want maths expression in order to know how these parameters will effect
in cost ???
The expressions are complicated, and they are certainly not linear as
Thanks Mr Nathan Boley ,
i want these equations to solve thsese equtions of parameters and total time
in
order to get each paramter formula
i need these formula in my experiments is very important to know the rate for
each parameter in total cost for plan.
Best
Radhya..
I have two servers one has replication the other does not. The same
query on both servers. One takes 225seconds on the replicated server
the first time it runs and only 125ms on the other server the first time
it runs. The second time you execute the query it drops to the 125ms.
They are using
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Scott Marlowe
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:29 PM
To: Glyn Astill
Cc: Kevin Grittner; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, mark dvlh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering, which LSI card ?
Was this 32 drives in Raid 1+0 with a two drive raid 1 for logs or some
other config?
We were using teh LSI but I'll be switching back to Areca when we
go back to HW RAID. The LSI only
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, mark dvlh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering, which LSI card ?
Was this 32 drives in Raid 1+0 with a two drive raid 1 for logs or some
other config?
We were using teh LSI but
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 6:18 PM
To: mark
Cc: Glyn Astill; Kevin Grittner; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-
performa...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
On Mon, Apr 11,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The issue I'm seeing is that 8 real cores outperform 16 real
cores, which outperform 32 real cores under high concurrency.
With every benchmark I've done of
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:50 PM, mark dvlh...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
I guess I have never gotten to the point where I felt I needed more than 2
drives for my xlogs. Maybe I have been dismissing that as a possibility
something. (my biggest array is only 24 SFF
On 2011-04-11 22:39, James Cloos wrote:
GA == Glyn Astillglynast...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
GA I was hoping someone had seen this sort of behaviour before,
GA and could offer some sort of explanation or advice.
Jesper's reply is probably most on point as to the reason.
I know that recent
Hi everybody,
I have a performance-problem with a query using a LIMIT. There are other
threads rergading performance issues with LIMIT, but I didn't find useful hints
for our problem and it might
be interesting for other postgres-users.
There are only 2 simple tables:
CREATE TABLE newsfeed
(
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi Guys,
I'm just doing some tests on a new server running one of our heavy select
functions (the select part of a plpgsql function to allocate seats)
concurrently. We do use connection pooling and split out some
40 matches
Mail list logo
