On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Mikkel Høgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, if anyone has any tips, input, etc. on how best to configure
> PostgreSQL for Drupal, or can find a way to poke holes in my analysis, I
> would love to hear your insights :)
It'd be more accurate to configure
On 12/18/05, James Klo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> explain analyze delete from timeblock where timeblockid = 66
>
> Index Scan using timeblockid_idx on timeblock (cost=0.00..5.28 rows=1
> width=6) (actual time=0.022..0.022 rows=0 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (timeblockid = 66)
> Total runtime
Is
SELECT DISTINCT foo, bar FROM baz;
equivalent to
SELECT foo, bar from baz GROUP BY foo, bar;
?
In the former case, pgsql >= 7.4 does not use HashAgg, but uses it for
the latter case. In many circumstances, esp. for large amount of data
in the table baz, the second case is an order of a mag
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes. If you were doing multiple WAL writes before transaction fsync,
you would be fsyncing every write, rather than doing two writes and
fsync'ing them both. I wonder if larger transactions would find
open_sync slower?
No hard numbers, but I remember testing fsync vs open_sy
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Yes. If and only if you have a battery-backed cache. I know of no
IDE drives that have that, but there's nothing about the spec which
makes it impossible.
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0103.0/1084.html
Relevant section:
Maybe that is why there is a vender
Stephan Szabo wrote:
Looking at the explain:
Veering aside a bit, since we usually pinpoint performance problems by
looking at EXPLAIN ANALYZE's differences between the planner's
estimation and actual execution's stats, what's involved in parsing the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE results, and highlighting th
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Good for you. You have time at hand to find out which one suits you best. Do
the testing before you have load that needs another FS..:-)
Kinda my point is that when we've more load, we'd be using RAID-0 over
RAID-5, or getting faster SCSI drives, or even turn fsync off
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between
users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide.
Need? Ma
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 at 10:41, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
I'm using ext2. For now, I'll leave this and the OS version alone. If I
I appreciate your approach but it almost proven that ext2 is not the best and
fastest out there.
Agreed.
IMO, you can safely change that to reiserf
Matthew Hixson wrote:
I don't know what that is. I don't have an iostat utility on the
machine. This is a Debian Linux machine. Is there a package with that
utility in it?
apt-get install sysstat
apt-cache search iostat can be used to search for it, or use
http://www.debian.org/distrib/pack
Michael Mattox wrote:
I just set it to 2.5. What kind of benchmark can I run?
I'm probably getting artificial results, but I recently just did in psql:
CREATE VIEW foo AS {complex_slow_query};
SET random_page_cost = 1.5; EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM foo;
Note the time taken. Repeat a few time
11 matches
Mail list logo
