Re: [PERFORM] Can I do better than this heapscan and sort?

2012-06-27 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Andy Halsall wrote: > > >> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:42:34 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Can I do better than this heapscan and sort? >> From: mmonc...@gmail.com >> To: halsall_a...@hotmail.com >> CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012

Re: [PERFORM] [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
Thank you. Cheers, WBL Op 27 jun. 2012 14:59 schreef "Ants Aasma" het volgende: > On Jun 27, 2012 2:29 PM, "Willy-Bas Loos" wrote: > > Should i use a larger shared_buffers for the other cluster(s) too, so > that i bypass the inefficient OS file-cache? > > Once the in-memory cluster has filled i

Re: [PERFORM] [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Ants Aasma
On Jun 27, 2012 2:29 PM, "Willy-Bas Loos" wrote: > Should i use a larger shared_buffers for the other cluster(s) too, so that i bypass the inefficient OS file-cache? Once the in-memory cluster has filled its shared buffers, the pages go cold for the OS cache and get replaced with pages of other c

Re: [PERFORM] [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > > * need fast writes on one cluster, so steal some memory to fit the DB in > shared_buffers > > correction: READs, not writes. sry. -- "Quality comes from focus and clarity of purpose" -- Mark Shuttleworth

Re: [PERFORM] [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > I cannot follow that reasoning completely. Who needs OS level file cache > when postgres' shared_buffers is better? The efficiency should go up again > after passing 50% of shared buffers, where you would be caching everything > twice. > T

Re: [PERFORM] [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > Check if you are CPU-bound. On a database which fits fully you may > already be. > > Being CPU-bound is my goal. That makes your answer a yes to me. Only i'm afraid that this solution is not optimal. Because i am stealing more resopurces fro

[PERFORM] Re: [pgsql-cluster-hackers][performance] fast reads on a busy server

2012-06-27 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 00:16 +0200, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > Hi, > > I've read this: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Prioritizing_databases_by_separating_into_multiple_clusters > > But it doesn't really say anything about memory. > If i can fit an extra cluster into it's shared buffer, it should