On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 5/13/13 6:36 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
>>
>> stoqs_march2013_s=# explain analyze select * from
>> stoqs_measuredparameter order by datavalue;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
>>
On 5/13/13 6:36 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
stoqs_march2013_s=# explain analyze select * from
stoqs_measuredparameter order by datavalue;
QUERY PLAN
---
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
> We assume that steps taken to improve the worst-case query scenario will
> also improve these kind of queries. If anything above pops out as needing
> better planning please let us know that too!
Bad assumption. If your real workload will be
On May 13, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
>
> Increasing work_mem to 355 MB improves the performance by a factor of 2:
>
> stoqs_march2013_s=# set work_mem='355MB';
> SET
> stoqs_march2013_s=# explain analyze select * from stoqs_measure
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
>
> Increasing work_mem to 355 MB improves the performance by a factor of 2:
>
> stoqs_march2013_s=# set work_mem='355MB';
> SET
> stoqs_march2013_s=# explain analyze select * from stoqs_measuredparameter
> order by datavalue;
>
On May 7, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to help
> > solve our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to help
> > solve our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
> >
> > Our server hosts databases that are about
: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9 9710222
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mike McCann
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:11 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] Hardware suggestions for maximum read performance
On 05/03/2013 01:11, Mike McCann wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to
help solve our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
Our server hosts databases that are about 1 GB in size with the
largest tables having order 10 million 20-byte index
Note that with linux (and a few other OSes) you can use RAID-1E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#RAID_1E
with an odd number of drives.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Arjen van der Meijden
wrote:
> 3x200GB suggests you want to use RAID5?
>
> Perhaps you should just pick 2x20
3x200GB suggests you want to use RAID5?
Perhaps you should just pick 2x200GB and set them to RAID1. With roughly
200GB of storage, that should still easily house your "potentially
10GB"-database with ample of room to allow the SSD's to balance the
writes. But you save the investment and its pr
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to help
> solve our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
>
> Our server hosts databases that are about 1 GB in size with the largest
> tables having order 10 million 20-b
Hello,
We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to help solve
our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
Our server hosts databases that are about 1 GB in size with the largest tables
having order 10 million 20-byte indexed records. The data are loaded once and
then read f
13 matches
Mail list logo
