On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 07:04 PM, Ang Chin Han wrote:
Matthew Hixson wrote:
I don't know what that is. I don't have an iostat utility on the
machine. This is a Debian Linux machine. Is there a package with
that utility in it?
apt-get install sysstat
apt-cache search iostat can be use
Matthew Hixson wrote:
I don't know what that is. I don't have an iostat utility on the
machine. This is a Debian Linux machine. Is there a package with that
utility in it?
apt-get install sysstat
apt-cache search iostat can be used to search for it, or use
http://www.debian.org/distrib/pack
Michael Mattox wrote:
I just set it to 2.5. What kind of benchmark can I run?
I'm probably getting artificial results, but I recently just did in psql:
CREATE VIEW foo AS {complex_slow_query};
SET random_page_cost = 1.5; EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM foo;
Note the time taken. Repeat a few time
> > iostat reports heavy disk usage?
Do you know of another way to report disk activity?
> I don't know what that is. I don't have an iostat utility on the
> machine. This is a Debian Linux machine. Is there a package with that
> utility in it?
I don't know. It must be in a package somewhe
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Rod Taylor wrote:
We have also done little to no performance tuning of Postgres'
configuration. We do have indexes on all of the important columns and
we have reindexed. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Tuning will often double (if not more)
>We have also done little to no performance tuning of Postgres'
> configuration. We do have indexes on all of the important columns and
> we have reindexed. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Tuning will often double (if not more) the performance.
What are the specs of the box? M
We currently have a public website that is serving customers, or at
least trying to. This machine is underpowered but we are going to be
upgrading soon. In the meantime we need to keep the current site alive.
We are running a Java application server. It is receiving
'transaction timed out'
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 11:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > REINDEX and VACUUM FULL are just as good.
>
> Isn't there a difference between them up to 7.4? I thought that there
> were still cases where VACUUM FULL wouldn't pick up on regions of dead
> keys where they would never get reused. (Typica
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 10:40, Michael Mattox wrote:
> > I'd be tempted to bump it up to 2.0 or 2.5 since data is on a single
> > disk (sequential scans *will* be faster than an index scan), but you
> > would need to run a benchmark on your disk to see if that is right.
>
> I just set it to 2.5. Wh
> The database grovs to ~60Gb and after a 'vacuum full' it's ~31Gb, after
> about a week the database it up to 55-60Gb again and i have to do a
> 'vacuum alalyze full' to gain disk (the disk is 70Gb so I'm living on
> the edge here ;(
Cron vacuum (no analyze or full) more frequently -- every 1
> I'd be tempted to bump it up to 2.0 or 2.5 since data is on a single
> disk (sequential scans *will* be faster than an index scan), but you
> would need to run a benchmark on your disk to see if that is right.
I just set it to 2.5. What kind of benchmark can I run?
> Every monitor is updated e
Hi all!
I have a big trouble with a database and hope you can help out on how to
improve the time vacuum takes.
The database grovs to ~60Gb and after a 'vacuum full' it's ~31Gb, after
about a week the database it up to 55-60Gb again and i have to do a
'vacuum alalyze full' to gain disk (the d
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:46, Michael Mattox wrote:
> > Shared buffers is probably too high. How much memory in this machine?
> > Is there anything else running aside from PostgreSQL? What does top say
> > about cached / buffered data (number)
>
> I was using the 25% of RAM guideline posted recen
> Shared buffers is probably too high. How much memory in this machine?
> Is there anything else running aside from PostgreSQL? What does top say
> about cached / buffered data (number)
I was using the 25% of RAM guideline posted recently. The machine has
1.5gig but it also has a couple other j
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 10:24, Michael Mattox wrote:
> > Try this:
>
> Rod, you improved my query last week (thank you very much) but I'm not sure
> why but my performance is getting worse. I think I know what happened, when
> I did my load testing I created data that all had the same date, so sort
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 10:28, Michael Mattox wrote:
> > My postgresql.conf is attached in case I have it configured incorrectly.
>
> Forgot my postgres.conf..
Shared buffers is probably too high. How much memory in this machine?
Is there anything else running aside from PostgreSQL? What does to
> My postgresql.conf is attached in case I have it configured incorrectly.
Forgot my postgres.conf..
postgresql.conf
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subs
> Try this:
Rod, you improved my query last week (thank you very much) but I'm not sure
why but my performance is getting worse. I think I know what happened, when
I did my load testing I created data that all had the same date, so sorting
on the date was very fast. But now I've been running the
18 matches
Mail list logo
