Thank you for the patch. The index size is back down to 500MB and there
are no performance issues with queries against the table.
-Original Message-
From: Teodor Sigaev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:08 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Dolafi, Tom; pgsql-performance@postgres
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:48:44PM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
>
> Hi Heikki,
>
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >That's really exciting news!
> >
> >I'm sure you spent a lot of time tweaking the settings, so let me ask
> >you something topical:
> >
> >How did you end up with the bgwriter set
On 7/9/07, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, it might be worth trying the different wal_sync_methods. IIRC,
Jonah's seen some good results from open_datasync.
On Linux, using ext3, reiser, or jfs, I've seen open_sync perform
quite better than fsync/fdatasync in most of my tests. But
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:06:29PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
> >I'm very curious to know if we may expect or guarantee any data
> >consistency with WAL sync=OFF but using file system mounted in Direct
> >I/O mode (means every write() system call called by PG really writes
>
On 7/9/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PostgreSQL still beats MySQL ;)
Agreed.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 7/9/07, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's just enough hardware differences between the two configurations
that it's not quite a fair fight. For example, the MySQL test had 10K
RPM
drives in the database server storage array, while the PostgreSQL one had
1
On 7/9/07, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's just enough hardware differences between the two configurations
that it's not quite a fair fight. For example, the MySQL test had 10K RPM
drives in the database server storage array, while the PostgreSQL one had
15K RPM ones. A few other
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I would note that if you track through the other results that we indeed beat
MySQL ;)
There's just enough hardware differences between the two configurations
that it's not quite a fair fight. For example, the MySQL test had 10K RPM
drives in the da
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It is also the reason that those in the know typically ignore all
benchmarks and do their own testing.
Heresy!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:13AM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
>>> I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
>>> postgresql against other databases.
>>>
>>> http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
>>
>>
Hi Heikki,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That's really exciting news!
I'm sure you spent a lot of time tweaking the settings, so let me ask
you something topical:
How did you end up with the bgwriter settings you used? Did you
experiment with different values? How much difference did it make?
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:13AM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
Am I right if this is for a T2000 (Niagara)
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:13AM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
> postgresql against other databases.
>
> http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
Am I right if this is for a T2000 (Niagara) database server? It sure
Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
Hello all,
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
More on Josh Berkus's blog:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/postgresql-publishes-fi
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 7/9/07, Jignesh K. Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
I'm happy to see an industry-standard benchmark result for PostgreSQL.
Great work guys!
I would note that if you
On 7/9/07, Jignesh K. Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
I'm happy to see an industry-standard benchmark result for PostgreSQL.
Great work guys!
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 73
Hello all,
I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
postgresql against other databases.
http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
More on Josh Berkus's blog:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/postgresql-publishes-first-real-benchmark-17470
17 matches
Mail list logo
