[GENERAL] Error in 8.4.4-1 of windows installer from Enterprisedb
Hi , The installer has an error dealing with directory separator char on windows platform, it seems the installer causes the server looking for configuration file path with /, it should be \. Hoping Enterprisedb engineers can see this message.
[GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
Dear all: We are currently considering using PostgreSQL to host a read only warehouse, we would like to get some experiences, best practices and performance metrics from the user community, following is the question list: 1. What's size of your database? 2. What Operating System are you using? 3. What level is your RAID array? 4. How many cores and memory does your server have? 5. What about your performance of join operations? 6. What about your performance of load operations? 7. How many concurrent readers of your database, and what's the average transfer rate, suppose all readers are doing one table scaning. 8. Single instance or a cluster, what cluster software are you using if you have a cluster? Thank you in advance! -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
>> 7. How many concurrent readers of your database, and what's the average >> transfer rate, suppose all readers are doing one table scaning. > > Concurrent but idle connections in production are around 600. Active > connections at a time are in the dozens. I can read at about 60 to 70 > Megs a second for random access and around 350 to 400 Megs a second > for sequential reads. > I am not so familiar with PostgreSQL, it uses a one process per connection architecture, let me say one agent process per client , what I am wondering is how multiple agent process share page caches. In many other databases, client agents uses the multiple thread method, so they can share memory buffers within the same process, are there share-memory mechanisms between PostgreSQL agent processes? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
> On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 11:42 +0800, Amber wrote: >> Dear all: >> We are currently considering using PostgreSQL to host a read only >> warehouse, we would like to get some experiences, best practices and >> performance metrics from the user community, following is the question list: >> 1. What's size of your database? >> 2. What Operating System are you using? >> 3. What level is your RAID array? >> 4. How many cores and memory does your server have? >> 5. What about your performance of join operations? >> 6. What about your performance of load operations? >> 7. How many concurrent readers of your database, and what's the average >> transfer rate, suppose all readers are doing one table scaning. >> 8. Single instance or a cluster, what cluster software are you using if you >> have a cluster? >> >> Thank you in advance! > > 1. 2.5-3TB, several others that are of fractional sisize. How many CPU cores and memory does your server have :) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
Another question, how many people are there maintaining this huge database. We have about 2T of compressed SAS datasets, and now considering load them into a RDBMS database, according to your experience, it seems a single PostgreSQL instance can't manage such size databases well, it that right? -- From: "Amber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:51 PM To: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Subject: Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database? > > >> On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 11:42 +0800, Amber wrote: >>> Dear all: >>> We are currently considering using PostgreSQL to host a read only >>> warehouse, we would like to get some experiences, best practices and >>> performance metrics from the user community, following is the question list: >>> 1. What's size of your database? >>> 2. What Operating System are you using? >>> 3. What level is your RAID array? >>> 4. How many cores and memory does your server have? >>> 5. What about your performance of join operations? >>> 6. What about your performance of load operations? >>> 7. How many concurrent readers of your database, and what's the average >>> transfer rate, suppose all readers are doing one table scaning. >>> 8. Single instance or a cluster, what cluster software are you using if you >>> have a cluster? >>> >>> Thank you in advance! >> >> 1. 2.5-3TB, several others that are of fractional sisize. > > > How many CPU cores and memory does your server have :) > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
I read something from http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb/SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/index.html saying that PostgreSQL can't give the correct result of the some TPC-H queries, I wonder is there any official statements about this, because it will affect our plane of using PostgreSQL as an alternative because it's usability. BTW I don't think PostgreSQL performances worse because the default configuration usually can't use enough resources of the computer, as as memory.
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
Yes, we don't care about the performance results, but we do care about the point that PostgreSQL can't give the correct results of TPC-H queries. -- From: "Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result? > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:49PM +0800, Amber wrote: > >> I read something from >> http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb/SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/index.html > > Given that the point of that "study" is to prove something about > performance, one should be leery of any claims based on an "out of the > box" comparison. Particularly since the "box" their own product comes > out of is "compiled from CVS checkout". Their argument seems to be > that people can learn how to drive CVS and to compile software under > active development, but can't read the manual that comes with Postgres > (and a release of Postgres well over a year old, at that). > > I didn't get any further in reading the claims, because it's obviously > nothing more than a marketing effort using the principle that deriding > everyone else will make them look better. Whether they have a good > product is another question entirely. > > A > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +1 503 667 4564 x104 > http://www.commandprompt.com/ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] PostgreSQL process architecture question.
We know PostgreSQL uses one dedicated server process to serve one client connection, what we want to know is whether PostgreSQL use multiple threads inside agents processes to take advantage of multiple CPUs. In our site we have only a few concurrent connections, so what occurs inside agent process is very important to us.
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
> 8. We have a master and a replica. We have plans to move to a > cluster/grid Soon(TM). It's not an emergency and Postgres can easily > handle and scale to a 3TB database on reasonable hardware (<$30k). > I'd like to know what's your progress of choosing the cluster/grid solution, we are also looking for an appropriate one, following is the our major factors of the ideal solution. 1. Some kind of MPP. 2. No single point of failure. 3. Convenient and multiple access interfaces. And following the is the solutions we have examined: 1. Slony-I: Not a MPP solution, and using triggers to detect changes, which defects performance. 2. pgpool-II: Some kind of MPP, but join operations can't be done on multiple machines parallelly, that is it can't scale out well. 3. Sequoia : The same problem as pgpool-II, and the major access interface is JDBC. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
> Yahoo has a 2PB Postgres single instance Postgres database (modified > engine), but the biggest pure Pg single instance I've heard of is 4TB. > The 4TB database has the additional interesting property in that they've > done none of the standard "scalable" architecture changes (such as > partitioning, etc). To me, this is really a shining example that even > naive Postgres databases can scale to as much hardware as you're willing > to throw at them. Of course, clever solutions will get you much more > bang for your hardware buck. Can you share some ideas of the particular design of the 4T db, it sounds very interesting :) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
Yes, we know both Greenplum and Netezza are PostgreSQL based MPP solutions, but they are commercial packages. I'd like to know are there open source ones, and I would suggest the PostgreSQL Team to start a MPP version of PostgreSQL. -- From: "Joshua Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:27 PM To: "Amber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Subject: Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database? > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:17:40 +0800 > "Amber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 1. Some kind of MPP. >> 2. No single point of failure. >> 3. Convenient and multiple access interfaces. >> >> And following the is the solutions we have examined: > > http://www.greenplum.com/ > > Joshua D. Drake > > > -- > The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ > United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > > > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
