Hi,
> it's a lot of work and right now the only people
> who've done that work aren't giving it away for free - or not in any form
> that can be integrated into PostgreSQL without removing other capabilities
> other users need.
One MPP vendor implemented columnar store in roughly six months --
lo
On 11/08/2011 06:36 PM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
Are you saying there's too much random I/O? Is it possible it'd benefit from
a column store?
When you're using Greenplum are you using "Polymorphic Data Storage" column
storage "WITH (orientation=column)" ?
yes, exactly. Column store and compression
Hi,
On 9 November 2011 04:53, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/08/11 1:49 AM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
>>
>> Greenplum or Postgres + Fusion IO can deliver this performance for us.
>
> then, thats your answer! it ain't free, oh well.
FusionIO is little bit problematic: smaller card (2.4TB) has serious
On 11/08/11 2:36 AM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
Yeah, I know about those.. I like iotop but enterprise distributions
do not ship fresh kernels... I need something which can I "safely"
(slightly worse performance is acceptable but machine must survie) run
in production for several hours and then cross r
On 11/08/11 1:49 AM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
Greenplum or Postgres + Fusion IO can deliver this performance for us.
then, thats your answer! it ain't free, oh well.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
--
Sent via pgsq
Hi,
2011/11/8 Tomas Vondra :
> Sure you did - you've stated that "mostly heavy read
> workloads but OLTP performance is required (like run query over 100m+
> dataset in 15 sec)." That clearly mentions OLTP ...
Whatever :) Let's make it clear: I need to run aggregates/roll
ups/drill downs on larg
Hi,
2011/11/8 Craig Ringer :
> "Spreads reads too much" ?
>
> Are you saying there's too much random I/O? Is it possible it'd benefit from
> a column store?
> When you're using Greenplum are you using "Polymorphic Data Storage" column
> storage "WITH (orientation=column)" ?
yes, exactly. Column s
On 8 Listopad 2011, 10:49, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
> Hi,
>>> mostly heavy read
>>> workloads but OLTP performance is required (like run query over 100m+
>>> dataset in 15 sec)
>>
>> that isn't OLTP, its OLAP. Online Analytic Processing rather than
>> Online
>> Transaction Processing large comp
Hi,
>> mostly heavy read
>> workloads but OLTP performance is required (like run query over 100m+
>> dataset in 15 sec)
>
> that isn't OLTP, its OLAP. Online Analytic Processing rather than Online
> Transaction Processing large complex reporting queries that have to
> aggregate many rows is
On 11/08/2011 02:49 PM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
Usually CPU is not bottleneck but I it was when I put Pustgres on
FusionIO. The problem is that PG spreads reads too much . iostat
reports very low drive utilisation and very low queue size.
"Spreads reads too much" ?
Are you saying there's too muc
On 11/07/11 10:49 PM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
mostly heavy read
workloads but OLTP performance is required (like run query over 100m+
dataset in 15 sec)
that isn't OLTP, its OLAP. Online Analytic Processing rather than
Online Transaction Processing large complex reporting queries that
h
Hi,
On 8 November 2011 16:58, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Which one(s) are you referring to? In what kind of workloads?
>
> Are you talking about Greenplum or similar?
Yes, mainly Geenplum and nCluster (AsterData). I haven't played with
gridSQL and pgpool-II's parallel query mode too much. Queries are
On 11/08/2011 09:28 AM, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
I have simple question (I think which is not easy to answer): why
Postgres is so slow comparing to other Postgres based MPP products
Which one(s) are you referring to? In what kind of workloads?
Are you talking about Greenplum or similar?
Another
13 matches
Mail list logo
