Hi *,
just installed official rpm from http://yum.postgresql.org/ to check
functionality and performance of 9.6rc1. Unfortunately, binaries are
compiled with debug_assertions=on, which makes any performance testing
useless.
Regards,
Tigran.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsq
Hi,
We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes.
Tigran.
On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo wrote:Hello,I've been reading Mr. Greg Smith's "Postgres 9.0 - High Performance" book and I have some questions regarding the guidelines I found
- Original Message -
> From: "Graeme B. Bell"
> To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran"
> Cc: "Graeme B. Bell" , "Steve Crawford"
> , "Wes Vaske (wvaske)"
> , "pgsql-performance"
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 12:38:10 PM
Thanks for the Info.
So if RAID controllers are not an option, what one should use to build
big databases? LVM with xfs? BtrFs? Zfs?
Tigran.
- Original Message -
> From: "Graeme B. Bell"
> To: "Steve Crawford"
> Cc: "Wes Vaske (wvaske)" , "pgsql-performance"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7
On Jul 6, 2015 18:45, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> On 07/05/2015 10:16 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> > Thanks for the hin. My bad. The backup db and 9.5 had a different type on
> > one of the foreign-key constrains char(36) vs varchar(36).
> >
> > The schema was s
-
> From: "Tom Lane"
> To: "Andres Freund"
> Cc: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" , "pgsql-performance"
>
> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 4:33:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2015-07-05 13:10
0.01 |0.01 | 1006 | DELETE FROM t_dirs WHERE iname=$1 AND
iparent=$2
0.00 |0.00 | 2004 | COMMI
Tigran.
- Original Message -
> From: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran"
> To: "pgsql-performance"
> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 1:10:51 PM
&
Hi,
today I have update my test system to 9.5alpha1.
Most of the operations are ok, except delete.
I get ~1000 times slower!
chimera=# SELECT
(total_time / 1000 )::numeric(10,2) as total_secs,
(total_time/calls)::numeric(10,2) as average_time_ms, calls,
query
FROM pg_stat_statements where
Hi Pietro,
The modern CPUs trying to be too smart.
try to run this code to disable CPUs c-states:
> setcpulatency.c
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int32_t l;
int fd;
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s \n", argv[0]);
return 2;
"Merlin Moncure"
>
> Cc: "postgres performance list"
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:04:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On 24/09/14 21:23, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> > Hi Merlin et al.
> >
> > after buildi
ot; , "postgres performance
> list"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:21:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran
> wrote:
> > Hi Merlin,
> >
> > you are right, in 9.4 the debug_asserti
es performance
> list"
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:37:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Mark Kirkwood
> wrote:
> > On 19/09/14 19:24, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >&g
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Kirkwood"
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan"
> Cc: "Merlin Moncure" , "postgres performance list"
>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:26:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9
t; On 19/09/14 10:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > On 19/09/14 09:10, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Mark Kirkwood"
> >>> To: "Merlin Moncure" , "Tigran Mkrtchyan&quo
> On 19/09/14 08:32, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 9.3.5:
> >> 0.035940END;
> >>
> >>
> >> 9.4beta2:
> >> 0.957854EN
- Original Message -
> From: "Merlin Moncure"
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan"
> Cc: "postgres performance list"
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:32:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at
On Sep 18, 2014 9:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/18/2014 03:09 PM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Josh Berkus"
> >> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> >> Sent: Thursday,
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Berkus"
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:54:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On 09/18/2014 08:09 AM, Mkrtchyan,
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Janes"
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan"
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:56:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Mkrt
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Kirkwood"
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" ,
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:17:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>
> On 18/09/14 21:58, Mkrtchyan, Tigran
Hi Folk,
I am trying to investigate some performance issues which we have with postgres
(a different topic by itself) and tried postgres.9.4beta2, with a hope that it
perform better.
Turned out that 9.4 is 2x slower than 9.3.5 on the same hardware.
Some technical details:
Host: rhel 6.5 2.
21 matches
Mail list logo
