9).
The default scheduler is CFQ, changing to deadline provided us the 10x
difference that we were expecting.
In the end this was buried on the storage documentation that
somehow slipped us...
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Haroldo Kerry
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:06 PM Nikhil Shetty wrote:
> Hi J
696248104e/ , and do some PoCs.
Regards,
Haroldo Kerry
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:25 PM Arya F wrote:
> If I run the database on a server that has enough ram to load all the
> indexes and tables into ram. And then it would update the index on the HDD
> every x seconds. Would that work to i
rfaces (max bandwidth 2 Gbps)
Specs: Sequential Read Up to 1,400 MB/s Sequential Write Up to 930 MB/s
Random Read Up to 200,000 IOPS Random Write Up to 37,000 IOPS
Kind of surprisingly to us the local array outperforms the older (and more
expensive) by more than 2x.
Thanks for the help.
Regards,
Hello Steven,
Unfortunately logical replication is a pg10+ feature. One more reason for
upgrading from 9.6.10 :-)
Regards,
Haroldo Kerry
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:23 PM Haroldo Kerry wrote:
> Hello Steven,
> Thanks a lot for the idea, it had not thought about it.
> @Joshua @Tomas, t
Hello Steven,
Thanks a lot for the idea, it had not thought about it.
@Joshua @Tomas, thanks for clarifying why it doesn't work!
Best regards,
Haroldo Kerry
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:54 PM Steven Winfield <
steven.winfi...@cantabcapital.com> wrote:
> >Has anyone been thr
on logs),
but we ended up insecure about this path because of the binary differences
on data files.
But in principle it should work, right?
Has anyone been through this type of problem?
Regards,
Haroldo Kerry
conds on busy
periods (yes, 6 seconds), we now see 80 milliseconds, an almost 100 fold
improvement.
Best regards,
Haroldo Kerry
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:14 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM Justin Pryzby
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at
Justin,
Thanks for the quick response, I'll check it out.
Happy holidays,
Haroldo Kerry
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:55 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 02:44:55PM -0200, Haroldo Kerry wrote:
> > PostgreSQL 9.6.10 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (Debian 9.6.10-1.pgdg80+1),
&
might set up the application to have
several connections, and then issue SELECTs for different sections of the
table, and later join the data, but it looks cumbersome, especially if the
DB can do extract data using more IOPS.
Best regards,
Haroldo Kerry
CTO/COO
