Re: [PERFORM] [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move

On 2011-05-04 07:25, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better unless the SAN performs worse than the disks? It was more, "given all the incertainties, that seems like the least risky". The SAN might actually be less well performing than what

Re: [PERFORM] Order of tables

Heikki Linnakangas-3 wrote: > > On 28.04.2011 12:20, Rishabh Kumar Jain wrote: >> How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement? > > There is no difference in performance, if that's what you mean. (If not, > then pgsql-novice or pgsql-sql mailing list would've be more a

Re: [PERFORM] Order of tables

Robert Klemme-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rishabh Kumar Jain > > wrote: > >> How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement? >> > > To achieve what? Generally there is no requirement for a particular > ordering of relation na

Re: [PERFORM] Order of tables

Robert Klemme-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rishabh Kumar Jain > > wrote: > >> How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement? >> > > To achieve what? Generally there is no requirement for a particular > ordering of relation na

Re: [PERFORM] [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move

are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better unless the SAN performs worse than the disks? besides your point that it depends on what our end looks like i mean. (and what do you mean by "the DAS way", sry no native speaker) cheers, wbl On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:43 AM,

Re: [PERFORM] Order of tables

Thanks for previous reply my friend. In what manner are explicit joins added to improve performence? Are there some rules for it? -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Order-of-tables-tp4346077p4369082.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list arc

Re: [PERFORM] [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move

On 2011-05-03 17:52, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: Our database has gotten rather large and we are running out of disk space. our disks are 15K rpm SAS disks in RAID 10. We are going to rent some space on a FibreChannel SAN. That gives us the opportunity to separate the data and the indexes. Now i thoug

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

Greg Spiegelberg wrote: I ran pgbench tests late last year comparing EC2, GoGrid, a 5 year-old lab server and a new server. Whether I used a stock postgresql.conf or tweaked, the current 8.4 or 9.0, or varied the EC2 instance size EC2 was always at the bottom ranging from 409.834 to 693.100 tp

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

Mark Rostron wrote: the success/failure of it depends on your typical query activity, the size of your critical result set, and whether you are able to get enough RAM to make this work. Basically, it all comes down to "does the working set of data I access frequently fit in RAM?" If it does,

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

On 5/3/11 11:48 AM, Joel Reymont wrote: > What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the > best performance? Yes. Don't use EC2. There is no "best" performance on EC2. There's not even "good performance". Basically, EC2 is the platform for when performance doesn't

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

phoronix did some benchmarks of the ec2 machines and they show pretty poor numbers, especially in the I/O side of things http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amazon_ec2_round1&num=1 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amazon_ec2_micro&num=1 David Lang On Tue, 3

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

iowait is a problem on any platform that relies on spinning media, compared to RAM. no matter how fast a disk is, and no matter how intelligent the controller is, you are still dealing with an access speed differential of 10^6 (speed of disk access compared to memory access). i have had good result

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote: > On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote: > > On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote: > > > I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad. > > > > Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS? > > > > Tryin

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote: > On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote: > > I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad. > > Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS? > Trying to, yes. Let's see ... EBS volumes seem to vary in speed. Some

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote: > I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad. Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS? -- - for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, ker

Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2

On May 3, 2011 11:48:35 am Joel Reymont wrote: > What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the > best performance? > I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) T

[PERFORM] amazon ec2

What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the best performance? Thanks in advance, Joel -- - for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, kernel extensions and usb drivers -

[PERFORM] [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move

Hi, Our database has gotten rather large and we are running out of disk space. our disks are 15K rpm SAS disks in RAID 10. We are going to rent some space on a FibreChannel SAN. That gives us the opportunity to separate the data and the indexes. Now i thought it would be best to move the indexes

Re: [PERFORM] pgpoolAdmin handling several pgpool-II clusters

>It's probably not a good idea to choose your clustering technology >based on the web interfaces... Running 3 pgpooladmin doesn't seem like >a huge thing. No - our choice will be made based on the performance of the cluster, the scalability and finally the amount of work involved in configuration,

Re: [PERFORM] Query improvement

> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark wrote: > > but the result have been worst than before. By the way is there a posibility > > to create beeter query with same effect? > > I have tried more queries, but this has got best performance yet. > > Well, this seems to be the worst part: > >

[PERFORM] Postgres 9.0.4 + Hot Standby + FusionIO Drive + Performance => Query failed ERROR: catalog is missing 1 attribute(s) for relid 172226

Hi, I tried with the PostgreSQL 9.0.4 + Hot Standby and running the database from Fusion IO Drive to understand the PG Performance. While doing so I got the "*Query failed ERROR: catalog is missing 1 attribute(s) for relid 172226*". Any idea on this error? Is that combination PG + HotSB + Fusion

Re: [PERFORM] pgpoolAdmin handling several pgpool-II clusters

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 07:32, Jorgen wrote: >>No. pgpoolAdmin only supports one pgpool-II server. > > We have installed pgpoolAdmin, and it is a good and easy to use web app. So > we now have to choose between 3 x pgpoolAdmin or go for PostgresXC. It's probably not a good idea to choose your clus

Re: [PERFORM] Query improvement

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark wrote: > but the result have been worst than before. By the way is there a posibility > to create beeter query with same effect? > I have tried more queries, but this has got best performance yet. Well, this seems to be the worst part: (SELECT