Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have two postgresql servers. One runs 8.3.1, the other 8.3.3. On the 8.3.1
machine, the index scans are being planned extremely low cost:
Index Scan using ix_email_entity_thread on email_entity (cost=0.00..4.59
rows=1 wi
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Henrik wrote:
But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases, correct?
I can understand that RAID5 can be faster with sequential writes.
the key word here is "can" be faster, it depends
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Henrik wrote:
It feels like there is something fishy going on. Maybe the RAID 10
implementation on the PERC/6e is crap?
Normally, when a SATA implementation is running significantly faster than
a SAS one, it's because there's some write cache in the SATA disks turned
on (
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Henrik wrote:
My first idea was to have one partition on the RAID 10 using ext3 with
data=writeback, noatime as mount options.
But I wonder if I should have 2 partitions on the RAID 10 one for the PGDATA
dir using ext3 and one partition for XLOGS using ext2.
Really depen
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Mark Mielke wrote:
Now, modern Linux distributions default to "relatime"
Right, but Mark's HP test system is running Gentoo.
(ducks)
According to http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/2369/ relatime is the
default for Fedora 8, Mandriva 2008, Pardus, and Ubuntu 8.04.
Anywa
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
>
> 2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
> that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
> slow d
On 09/08/2008, Henrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
> calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases, correct?
If it had 10 spindles as opposed to 4 ... with 4 drives the "split" is (because
you're striping and m
8 aug 2008 kl. 18.44 skrev Mark Wong:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Henrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases,
correct?
I can understand that RAID5 can be faster w
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
>
> 2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
> that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
> slow d
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Henrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
> calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases, correct?
> I can understand that RAID5 can be faster with sequential writes.
There is some da
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
>
> 2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
> that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
> slow d
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Gregory S. Youngblood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Wong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:37 PM
>> To: Mario Weilguni
>> Cc: Mark Kirkwood; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
>> [EMAIL
But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases,
correct?
I can understand that RAID5 can be faster with sequential writes.
//Henke
8 aug 2008 kl. 16.53 skrev Luke Lonergan:
Your expected write speed on a
Your expected write speed on a 4 drive RAID10 is two drives worth, probably 160
MB/s, depending on the generation of drives.
The expect write speed for a 6 drive RAID5 is 5 drives worth, or about 400
MB/s, sans the RAID5 parity overhead.
- Luke
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECT
Just for closure I ended up doing
ALTER TABLE bars ALTER COLUMN bars_id SET STATISTICS 500;
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua Shanks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How do I increase the stats target for just one column?
>
> Look under ALTER TABLE.
>
>
Hello list,
I have a server with a direct attached storage containing 4 15k SAS
drives and 6 standard SATA drives.
The server is a quad core xeon with 16GB ram.
Both server and DAS has dual PERC/6E raid controllers with 512 MB BBU
There is 2 raid set configured.
One RAID 10 containing 4 SAS d
dforums wrote:
COuld you advice me on which restoration method is the faster. To
upgrade from postgresql 8.1.11 to 8.3.3.
Using the pg_dump from your 8.3 package, dump the database using -Fc to
get a nicely compressed dump. Then use pg_restore to restore it. If you
add a --verbose flag then y
Hello
Regarding the advice from all, and the performance of postgresql 8.3.3
I'm trying to change the server and to upgrade to 8.3.3
I install postgresql 8.3.3 on a new server for testing. All well!!!
And I run a \i mybackup.sql since yesterday 7pm. This morning the datas
are not insert yet.
18 matches
Mail list logo
