On 4/19/11 7:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Another thought is that we might want to consider reducing
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor. The root of the original problem
> seems to be that the table had some data churn but not enough to cause
> an ANALYZE. Now, if the data churn is random, auto-ana
hi,
Perhaps in postgresql.conf :
default_transaction_read_only
regards
philippe
Le 19/04/2011 00:08, Stefan Keller a écrit :
I browsed the faq and looked at PostgreSQL performance books but I
could not find the obvious:
How to configure a read-only database server?
I have a single-disk vi
On 04/18/2011 06:08 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
* What about wal_level and archive_mode?
Presumably you don't care about either of these. wal_level=minimal,
archive_mode=off.
The other non-obvious thing you should do in this situation is do all
the database maintenance in one big run afte
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> If the planner starts operating on the basis of worst case rather than
>>> expected-case performance, the complaints will be far more numerous than
>>> they are today.
>
>> Yeah, I don't think that's the way to go. The o
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Nathan Boley wrote:
> Another approach, that hasn't been suggested yet, is some Bayesian
> update method. There, rather than calculating a specific parameter
> value ( like ndistinct ), you try to store the entire distribution and
> choose the plan that minimizes c
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
>> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Laborde
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:37 AM
>> To: pgsql-performance
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Laborde
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:37 AM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgresql random io test with 2 SSD Ki
1 SSD Kingston V+100 250GB, no raid.
/home/pgiosim-0.5/pgiosim -w1 -a1 -v -b 100 /home/ssd/big1
Write Mode: 1%
Stallcheck at 1.00
Verbose
Unknown units of blocks
Arg: 1
Read 100 blocks
Added /home/ssd/big1
3.57%, 35720 read,365 written, 28567.73kB/sec 3570.97 iops
6.14%, 25684 r
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 04/19/2011 05:15 AM, Laurent Laborde wrote:
>>
>> 2 kingston V+100 500GB
4x250GB in Raid10 (see my 2nd post)
> Thanks for the performance report. The V+100 is based on a Toshiba T6UG1XBG
> controller, and it doesn't have any durable cache
On 04/19/2011 05:15 AM, Laurent Laborde wrote:
2 kingston V+100 500GB
Thanks for the performance report. The V+100 is based on a Toshiba
T6UG1XBG controller, and it doesn't have any durable cache from either a
battery or capacitor. As such, putting a database on that drive is very
risk
Sorry, it's not 2x512GB in Raid1 but 4x256GB in raid10
--
Laurent "ker2x" Laborde
Sysadmin & DBA at http://www.over-blog.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Robert Klemme
wrote:
> I find that slightly contradictory: either you do care about the
> values then your business requirements dictate the aggregate function.
> If you only want to pick any value actually in the table but do not
> care about which one (e.g. MIN
2 kingston V+100 500GB
Soft RAID1 (md)
ioscheduler [noop]
ext3
Linux pro-cdn1 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 25 05:59:43 UTC 2011
x86_64 GNU/Linux
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md4 452G 301G 128G 71% /home/ssd
Random 8KB read/write with 1% writ
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Uwe Bartels wrote:
> Oh, I do care about these columns.
> But by using an group by on the key columns, I cannot select the columns as
> they are. Otherwise you get an error message.
> So I have to use an aggregate functionlike min().
I find that slightly contradi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Stefan Keller wrote:
> I browsed the faq and looked at PostgreSQL performance books but I
> could not find the obvious:
> How to configure a read-only database server?
>
> I have a single-disk virtual Linux system and a read-only dataset
> which is exposed to inte
Hi Robert,
Oh, I do care about these columns.
But by using an group by on the key columns, I cannot select the columns as
they are. Otherwise you get an error message.
So I have to use an aggregate functionlike min().
Best...
Uwe
On 19 April 2011 10:24, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Uwe Bartels wrote:
> the aggregate function I was talking about is the function I need to use for
> the non-group by columns like min() in my example.
> There are of course several function to choose from, and I wanted to know
> which causes as less as possible res
17 matches
Mail list logo
