On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers and at the time
>> deadline or noop smashed cfq. Now, it is 100% possible since then that
>> they've made vast improvements to cfq and or the VM to get better or similar
>> p
Jeff wrote:
I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers and at the time
deadline or noop smashed cfq. Now, it is 100% possible since then
that they've made vast improvements to cfq and or the VM to get better
or similar performance. I recall a vintage of 2.6 where they severely
messe
Quick note, please stick to text formatted email for the mailing list,
it's the preferred format.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jayadevan M
wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> Apologies for the long mail.
> I work for a company that is provides solutions mostly on a Java/Oracle
> platform. Recently we mov
Can anybody briefly explain me how each postgres process allocate
memory for it needs?
I mean, what is the biggest size of malloc() it may want? How many
such chunks? What is the average size of allocations?
I think that at first it allocates contiguous piece of shared memory
for "shared buffers"
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Jayadevan M
wrote:
> Any feedback - a few sentences with the db size, tps, h/w necessary to
> support that, and acceptable down-time, type of application etc will be
> greatly appreciated.
> Our products are not of the blog/social networking type, but more of
> o
I've got a very slow query, which I can make faster by doing something
seemingly trivial.
The query has been trouble for years (always slow, sometimes taking hours):
512,600ms Original, filter on articles.indexed (622 results)
7,500ms Remove "AND articles.indexed" (726 results, undesirable).
Hello all,
Apologies for the long mail.
I work for a company that is provides solutions mostly on a Java/Oracle
platform. Recently we moved on of our products to PostgreSQL. The main
reason was PostgreSQL's GIS capabilities and the inability of government
departments (especially road/traffic) to
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 17:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The results certainly ought to be the same (although perhaps not with
> the same ordering) --- if they aren't, please provide a reproducible
> test case.
The results are the same, this is not a problem.
> As for efficiency, though, 8.1 didn't u
Dimi Paun writes:
>> From what I've read on the net, these should be very similar,
> and should generate equivalent plans, in such cases:
> SELECT DISTINCT x FROM mytable
> SELECT x FROM mytable GROUP BY x
> However, in my case (postgresql-server-8.1.18-2.el5_4.1),
> they generated different res
On 9 February 2010 21:46, Dimi Paun wrote:
> >From what I've read on the net, these should be very similar,
> and should generate equivalent plans, in such cases:
>
> SELECT DISTINCT x FROM mytable
> SELECT x FROM mytable GROUP BY x
>
> However, in my case (postgresql-server-8.1.18-2.el5_4.1),
> t
>From what I've read on the net, these should be very similar,
and should generate equivalent plans, in such cases:
SELECT DISTINCT x FROM mytable
SELECT x FROM mytable GROUP BY x
However, in my case (postgresql-server-8.1.18-2.el5_4.1),
they generated different results with quite different
execu
On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:35 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
And, yes, the whole I/O scheduling approach in Linux was just
completely redesigned for a very recent kernel update. So even
what we think we know is already obsolete in some respects.
I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers
Amitabh Kant wrote:
> Just curious if you have a 16 physical CPU's or 16 cores on 4
> CPU/8 cores over 2 CPU with HT.
Four quad core CPUs:
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 15
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7350 @ 2.93GHz
stepping
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Jesper Krogh wrote:
> File system is xfs noatime,nobarrier for all data; OS is on ext3. I
> *think* the pg_xlog mirrored pair is hanging off the same
> BBU-writeback controller as the big RAID, but I'd have to track down
> the hardware te
Jesper Krogh wrote:
> Sorry if it is obvious.. but what filesystem/OS are you using and
> do you have BBU-writeback on the main data catalog also?
Sorry for not providing more context.
ATHENA:/var/pgsql/data # uname -a
Linux ATHENA 2.6.16.60-0.39.3-smp #1 SMP Mon May 11 11:46:34 UTC
2009 x86
>
> Frankly, I was quite surprised by this, since some of the benchmarks
> people have published on the effects of using a separate RAID for
> the WAL files have only shown a one or two percent difference when
> using a hardware RAID controller with BBU cache configured for
> write-back.
Hi Kevin.
Due to an error during an update to the system kernel on a database
server backing a web application, we ran for a month (mid-December
to mid-January) with the WAL files in the pg_xlog subdirectory on
the same 40-spindle array as the data -- only the OS was on a
separate mirrored pair of drives. W
I wrote:
> > One idea that occurs to me is that it might be possible to add to PG
> > some tuple lock modes that are intended to cover updates that don't
> > touch indexed columns. So, say:
> >
> > SHARED NONINDEX - conflicts only with EXCLUSIVE locks
> > SHARED - conflicts with EXCLUSIVE or EXCL
I just answered this less than an hour ago... And please don't cross
post to multiple mailing lists.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, AI Rumman wrote:
> I have created a index
> create index leadaddress_phone_idx on
> leadaddress(regexp_replace((phone)::text, '[^0-9]*'::text, ''::text,
> 'g'::te
Le 09/02/2010 08:43, AI Rumman a écrit :
> I have created a index
> create index leadaddress_phone_idx on
> leadaddress(regexp_replace((phone)::text, '[^0-9]*'::text, ''::text,
> 'g'::text));
>
> But the index is not using.
>
> explain select * from leadaddress where
> regexp_replace(phone,'[^0-9
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:55 AM, AI Rumman wrote:
> I have created a index
> create index leadaddress_phone_idx on
> leadaddress(regexp_replace((phone)::text, '[^0-9]*'::text, ''::text,
> 'g'::text));
>
> But the index is not using.
like '%yada'
isn't capable of using an index. If it's left anc
I have created a index
create index leadaddress_phone_idx on
leadaddress(regexp_replace((phone)::text, '[^0-9]*'::text, ''::text,
'g'::text));
But the index is not using.
explain select * from leadaddress where
regexp_replace(phone,'[^0-9]*','','g') like '%2159438606';
22 matches
Mail list logo
