tsuraan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the WAL at the same location as the xlog (transaction log?)?
Same thing.
> The checkpoint_segments doc says increasing that value is really only
> useful if the xlog is separate from the data,
Dunno where you read that, but it's utter bilge. If you've go
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/Downloads/annotated_conf_80.html is a good
intro to the various parameters you might set, with some valuable hints on
the effective range you should be considering. I'd suggest you use that
to identify the most likely things to increase, then read the manuals at
htt
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, tsuraan wrote:
Since my application is constantly adding to the database (far more is
written than is ever read), it would be nice to have a multiple-write,
single reader solution, if such a thing exists.
You seem to be working from the assumption that you have a scaling i
For scaling you should consider slony. Either hangout on #slony on
Freenode.net or ask on the mailing list if you have questions.
For some reason I had thought slony was really immature, but it
actually looks really usable.
Intel chips => define more. There are Intel boxes known to have issues
To quickly find out a subset of slow queries on your production system, you
can use the pgfouine tool:
http://pgfouine.projects.postgresql.org/
If you then want to make some measurements of PostgreSQL performances with
some different settings and compare them, consider using the tsung tool (and
tsuraan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm writing a webmail-type application that is meant to be used in a
> corporate environment. The core of my system is a Postgres database
> that is used as a message header cache. The two (relevant) tables
> being used are pasted into the end of this messag
Tsuraan,
"Select count(*) from bigtable" is testing your disk drive speed up till
about 300MB/s, after which it is CPU limited in Postgres.
My guess is that your system has a very slow I/O configuration, either due
to faulty driver/hardware or the configuration.
The first thing you should do is
* tsuraan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061216 18:26]:
> I'm writing a webmail-type application that is meant to be used in a
> corporate environment. The core of my system is a Postgres database
> that is used as a message header cache. The two (relevant) tables
> being used are pasted into the end of th
Le samedi 16 décembre 2006 18:32, Steinar H. Gunderson a écrit :
> Instead, try real queries on real data,
> and post here if some are too slow for you.
To quickly find out a subset of slow queries on your production system, you
can use the pgfouine tool:
http://pgfouine.projects.postgresql.org
Unqualified SELECT COUNT(*) FROM foo is one of the most expensive operations
you can do on your system, since the visibility information has to be
checked
on disk for each row. Instead, try real queries on real data, and post here
if some are too slow for you.
Ok, that's a bad example. I'm lear
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:26:02AM -0600, tsuraan wrote:
> Even an operation like "select count(*) from messages" can take minutes,
> with a totally idle system. Postgres seems to be the most scalable Free
> database out there, so I must be doing something wrong.
Unqualified SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
I'm writing a webmail-type application that is meant to be used in a
corporate environment. The core of my system is a Postgres database
that is used as a message header cache. The two (relevant) tables
being used are pasted into the end of this message. My problem is
that, as the messages tabl
12 matches
Mail list logo
