The biggest single problem with "select count(*)" is that it is
seriously overused. People use that idiom to establish existence, which
usually leads to a performance disaster in the application using it,
unless the table has no more than few hundred records. SQL language, of
which PostgreSQL offe
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Joe Uhl wrote:
I have a similar, recent thread titled Partitioned Tables and ORDER BY with
a decent break down. I think I am hitting the same issue Michal is.
Essentially doing a SELECT against the parent with appropriate constraint
columns in the WHERE clause
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michal Szymanski wrote:
We have performance problem with query on partitioned table when query
use order by and we want to use first/last rows from result set.
More detail description:
We have big table where each row is one telephone call (CDR).
Definitni
This seems like a pretty major weakness in PostgreSQL partitioning. I
have essentially settled on not being able to do queries against the
parent table when I want to order the results. Going to have to use a
Hibernate interceptor or something similar to rewrite the statements so
they hit spe
We have been using partitioning for some time with great success. Up
until now our usage has not included ordering and now that we are trying
to use an ORDER BY against an indexed column a rather significant
shortcoming seems to be kicking in.
Parent table (have cut all but 4 columns to make
rst). I've run dozens of
distributions and this works well for us (a startup with nontrivial
Linux experience). I imagine at a larger company it definitely would
not be an option.
Joe Uhl
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
What does the cs entry on vmstat say at this time? If you're cs is
skyrocketing then you're getting a context switch storm
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
What does the cs entry on vmstat say at this time? If you're cs is
skyrocketing then you're getting a context switch storm
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a
Perc5 --
though
who knows if it was
On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a Perc5
-- though
who knows if it was the same under the hood -- and I saw better
performance
than this. I saw about 4MB/s for a single drive
ly, Aretec and Promise are good, Adaptec good, depending on
model, and the ones that Dell ship w/their servers haven't had good
reviews/reports.
On 03/16/2009 01:10 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
Here is vmstat 1 30. We are under peak load right now so I can
gather
information from the real deal :)
back to the
list on first try.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Monday 16 March 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
Right now (not under peak load) this server is running at 68% CPU
utilization and its SATA raid 10 is doing about 2MB/s writes and
11MB/
s reads. When I run dd I can hi
greatly appreciated.
Joe Uhl
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ron St-Pierre wrote:
>
>> Joe Uhl wrote:
>>
>>> I realize there are people who discourage looking at Dell, but i've been
>>> very happy with a larger ball of equipment we ordered recently from
>>> them. Our databas
I realize there are people who discourage looking at Dell, but i've been
very happy with a larger ball of equipment we ordered recently from
them. Our database servers consist of a PowerEdge 2950 connected to a
PowerVault MD1000 with a 1 meter SAS cable.
The 2950 tops out at dual quad core cpus,
total in the past 2 years.
Just my personal experience, i'd be happy to pass along the account
manager's information if anyone is interested.
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
e from someone but I
knew this list would provide some excellent ideas and feedback to get us
started.
Joe Uhl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:02:49 -0500, "Scott Marlowe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 8/9/07, Joe Uhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have
configured, but want to get some hardware ballparks in order to get
quotes and potentially request a trial unit.
Any thoughts or recommendations? We are running openSUSE 10.2 with
kernel 2.6.18.2-34.
Regards,
Joe Uhl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:56 PM
To: Joe Uhl
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Opinions on Raid
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 07:12, Joe Uhl wrote:
> We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
> raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configu
We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the
data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option
given our usage of Dell equipment and the way they handle raid 10. I
have just a few gen
20 matches
Mail list logo
