A Dimecres 23 Juliol 2008, Miernik va escriure:
> I have a PostgreSQL database on a very low-resource Xen virtual machine,
> 48 MB RAM. When two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to
> complete then if run in sequence. Is there perhaps a way to install
> something like a query sequencer,
A Dilluns 21 Juliol 2008, Leví Teodoro da Silva va escriure:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I am developing a project with PostgreSQL and one guy from project is
> familiar with Oracle and did a question for me, but i could not answer, if
> someone could help it will be good. =)
> The question is :
> *
> - In orac
d given the huge difference in this case: 80 minutes
to 1 second.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
==
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Albert Cervera Areny va escriure:
> A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Mark Mielke va escriure:
> > A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Richard Huxton va escriure:
> > >> Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
> > >>> I've got a query similar to this:
> &g
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Mark Mielke va escriure:
> A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Richard Huxton va escriure:
> >> Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
> >>> I've got a query similar to this:
> >>>
> >>> select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t1.i
A Dimecres 21 Maig 2008, Richard Huxton va escriure:
> Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
> > I've got a query similar to this:
> >
> > select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
> >
> > That took > 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but t
I've got a query similar to this:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
That took > 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but this is the part that
made the difference) after a little change the query took ~1 second:
select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t2.id >
could try
feeding those 50M tuples and test again.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
AVISO LEGAL ..
ty info in the table itself.
>
> OTOH, if NULL (or converserly not null) are rare, then yes, the index
> can help. I.e. if 1% of the tuples are null, the select count(*) from
> table where field is null can use the index efficiently.
But you'll get a sequential scan with the NOT N
king to get all the temp file creation onto the fast array.
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93 715 51 12
..
quot; near line 9
>
> ** Error **
>
> ERROR: syntax error at or near "$1"
> SQL state: 42601
> Context: SQL statement in PL/PgSQL function "test" near line 9
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Albert Cervera Areny <[EMAIL PROT
A Dimecres 13 Febrer 2008 15:25, Linux Guru va escriure:
> I want to create and update two tables in a function such as below, but
> using parameters as tablename is not allowed and gives an error. Is there
> any way I could achieve this?
You're looking for EXECUTE:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/
As you suggested with two threads I get 42.39 Mb/s in one and 40.70 Mb/s in
the other one, so that's more than 80Mb/s. That's what I expected with a
single thread, so thanks for the information. It seems I will have to buy
better hard drives if I want increased performance...
A Dimecres 30 Maig
e Linux software RAID instead.
>
> Also - you might want to try a 512KB readahead - I've found that is optimal
> for RAID1 on some RAID controllers.
>
> - Luke
>
> On 5/30/07 2:35 AM, "Albert Cervera Areny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> &
Hi,
after doing the "dd" tests for a server we have at work I obtained:
Read: 47.20 Mb/s
Write: 39.82 Mb/s
Some days ago read performance was around 20Mb/s due to no readahead in
md0
so I modified it using hdparm. However, it seems to me that being it a RAID1
read speed could be
0m0.024s
> sys 0m0.008s
>
> $ psql InfluenzaWeb -c 'SELECT count(*) from agiraw ;'
>count
> -
> 4708941
> (1 row)
>
> real 0m4.474s
> user0m0.036s
> sys 0m0.004s
>
>
> Any explanation?
>
> Kind regards
>
>
ed a nudge in the
> right direction and maybe a URL or two to get me started.
>
> Thank you for reading this far.
>
> -Dan
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
&
er viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
> transmitted
--Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Albert
> Cervera Areny
> Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2006 12:38
> À : pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Objet : Re: [PERFORM] copy and postgresql.conf
>
>
>
> Hi William,
>
---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Albert Cervera Areny
Dept. Informàtica Sedifa, S.L.
Av. Can Bordoll, 149
08202 - Sabadell (Barcelona)
Tel. 93 715 51 11
Fax. 93
A Dimecres 01 Febrer 2006 01:32, Rodrigo Madera va escriure:
> I am concerned with performance issues involving the storage of DV on
> a database.
>
> I though of some options, which would be the most advised for speed?
>
> 1) Pack N frames inside a "container" and store the container to the db.
>
A Dimarts 27 Desembre 2005 18:13, Michael Fuhr va escriure:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 05:09:28PM +0100, Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
> > However, now we have a query that is much slower with 8.1 compared to
> > 7.4. The query lasts 7minutes (all the times we try) with 8.1,
Hello,
we have a PostgreSQL for datawarehousing. As we heard of so many
enhancements
for 8.0 and 8.1 versions we dicided to upgrade from 7.4 to 8.1. I must say
that the COPY FROM processes are much faster now from 27 to 17 minutes. Some
queries where slower, but the performance problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A Dimecres 16 Juliol 2003 16:38, Tom Lane va escriure:
> Albert Cervera Areny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have a performance problem using postgresql when the connection is
> > made via ODBC with a windows machine u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a performance problem using postgresql when the connection is made
via ODBC with a windows machine using the latests ODBC drivers (Windows) and
PostgreSQL 7.3.3 (Linux).
The queries made by my Visual Basic program are very very simple
25 matches
Mail list logo
