Re: [PERFORM] Most transactions per second on largest box?

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Currently we are running a dual cpu dell blade server on redhat linux > (2.4?) and PostgreSQL 7.3.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC 2.96, > raid5 and am using sqlrelay for connection pooling. It works fine under > ordinary load but bogs down too much under the

Re: [PERFORM] Tables on multiple disk drives

Konstantin, > > >> Does PostgreSQL allow to create tables and indices of a single > > >> database on multiple disk drives with a purpose of increase > > >> performance as Oracle database does? If a symbolic reference is the > > >> only method then the next question is: how can it be determined wha

[PERFORM] Most transactions per second on largest box?

This is a very general question but what is the largest linux box anyone has run PostgreSQL on and what kind of concurrent transactions per second have you seen?   We have a client who has huge bursts of activity, coinciding with high rated TV appearances, meaning hundreds of thousands o

Re: [PERFORM] Pl/Pgsql Functions running simultaneously

Am I on the wrong list to ask this question, or does this list usually have low activity? Just asking because I am new and I need to know where to ask this question. Thanks. On Wednesday 02 June 2004 16:08, Marcus Whitney wrote: > Hello all, > > I have an import function that I have been wor

Re: [PERFORM] RAID or manual split?

> It seems, that if I know the type and frequency of the queries a > database will be seeing, I could split the database by hand over > multiple disks and get better performance that I would with a RAID array > with similar hardware. Unlikely, but possible if you had radically different hardware f

Re: [PERFORM] Tables on multiple disk drives

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Craig Thomas wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Konstantin Tokar wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> Does PostgreSQL allow to create tables and indices of a single > >> database on multiple disk drives with a purpose of increase > >> performance as Oracle database does? If a symbolic refere

Re: [PERFORM] Disappointing performance in db migrated from MS SQL

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Josh, the disks in the new system should be substantially faster than > > the old. Both are Ultra160 SCSI RAID 5 arrays, but the new system has > > 15k RPM disks, as opposed to the 10k RPM disks in the old system. > > Spindle speed does not correla

Re: [PERFORM] very large db performance question

> IMHO the size of the DB is less relevant than the query workload. For > example, if you're storying 100GB of data but only doing a single > index scan on it every 10 seconds, any modern machine with enough HD > space should be fine. I agree that the workload is likely to be the main issue in mos

Re: [PERFORM] Slow response of PostgreSQL

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote: > select count(*), sum(vl_ex_stax) , sum(qty) , unit from inv_detail group by unit; > on both databases. > PostgreSQL Machine > ** > P-III 600Mhz (Dell Precision 220) > 256 MB Ram (RD Ram) > 40 GB Baracuda Ext2 File System. > RedHa

Re: [PERFORM] select max(id) from aTable is very slow

David Teran wrote: Hi, we have a table with about 6.000.000 rows. There is an index on a column with the name id which is an integer and serves as primary key. When we execute select max(id) from theTable; it takes about 10 seconds. Explain analyze returns: Due to the open-ended nature of PG's

[PERFORM] select max(id) from aTable is very slow

Hi, we have a table with about 6.000.000 rows. There is an index on a column with the name id which is an integer and serves as primary key. When we execute select max(id) from theTable; it takes about 10 seconds. Explain analyze returns: --