For background, please read the thread "Fusion-io ioDrive", archived at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-07/msg00010.php
To recap, I tested an ioDrive versus a 6-disk RAID with pgbench on an
ordinary PC. I now also have a 32GB Samsung SATA SSD, and I have tested
it in the sa
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 09:11 -0500, Ron wrote:
> I'm specifically interested in the default C Locale; but if there's a
> difference in the answer for other locales, I'd like to hear about
> that as well.
The size hit will be effectively zero if your data is mainly of the
ASCII variety, since ASCI
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 16:32 -0800, Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> 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.
> 2)
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:22 -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 09:12 +1300, Ralph Mason wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have 2 tables both have an index on ID (both ID columns are an oid).
> >
> > I want to find only only rows in one and not the othe
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 09:12 +1300, Ralph Mason wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 2 tables both have an index on ID (both ID columns are an oid).
>
> I want to find only only rows in one and not the other.
>
> Select ID from TableA where ID not IN ( Select ID from Table B)
Have you considered this:
SELEC
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:53 -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> On 1/31/06 8:09 PM, "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ... Prove it.
> > I think I've proved my point. Software RAID1 read balancing provides
> > 0%, 300
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 12:47 -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> On 1/31/06 12:03 PM, "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux does balanced reads on software
> > mirrors. I'm not sure why you think this can't improve bandwid
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 09:00 -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Jim,
>
> On 1/30/06 12:25 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why divide by 2? A good raid controller should be able to send read
> > requests to both drives out of the mirrored set to fully utilize the
> > bandwidth. Of co
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 13:44 -0500, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Depesz,
>
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > hubert depesz lubaczewski
> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:25 AM
> >
> > hmm .. do i understand correctly that you're suggesting that
> > using raid 10 and/or hardware raid adap
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Assuming that "month" means what it sounds like, the above would
> result
> in running twelve parallel sort/uniq operations, one for each month
> grouping, to eliminate duplicates before counting. You've got sortmem
> set high enough to blow
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 20:23 -0500, Mike Biamonte wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience with extremely large data sets?
> I'm mean hundreds of millions of rows.
Sure, I think more than a few of us do. Just today I built a summary
table from a 25GB primary table with ~430 million rows. This
ight
> > allow it to finish in a reasonable amount of time.
> > Or
> > Shedding load and dropping the VACUUM priority might allow a kill
> > signal to get through.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > At 05:09 PM 12/29/2005, Jeffre
A few WEEKS ago, the autovacuum on my instance of pg 7.4 unilaterally
decided to VACUUM a table which has not been updated in over a year and
is more than one terabyte on the disk. Because of the very high
transaction load on this database, this VACUUM has been ruining
performance for almost a mon
I have an instance of PG 7.4 where I would really like to execute some
schema changes, but every schema change is blocked waiting for a process
doing a COPY. That query is:
COPY drill.trades (manager, sec_id, ticker, bridge_tkr, date, "type",
short, quantity, price, prin, net_money, factor) TO st
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:52 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
>
> 14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> OR
>
> 12x 72GB 10kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> both would be configured into RAID 10 over two SCSI channels using a
> megaraid 320-2x card.
>
>
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 12:14 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> I've now gotten verification from multiple working DBA's that DB2, Oracle, and
> SQL Server can achieve ~250MBps ASTR (with as much as ~500MBps ASTR in
> setups akin to Oracle RAC) when attached to a decent (not outrageous, but
> decent) HD
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 14:16 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> > > Nope, LOTS of testing, at OSDL, GreenPlum and Sun. For comparison, A
> > > Big-Name Proprietary Database doesn't get much more than that either.
> >
> > I find this claim very suspicious. I get single-threaded reads in
> > ex
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 13:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > >Realistically, you can't do better than about 25MB/s on a
> > > single-threaded I/O on current Linux machines,
> >
> > What on earth gives you that idea? Did you drop a zero?
>
> Nope, LOTS of testing, at OSDL, GreenPlum and
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 11:15 -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> > I thought this might be interesting, not the least due to the
> > extremely low
> > price ($150 + the price of regular DIMMs):
> >
> >
> >
>
> This has been posted before, and th
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 10:06 -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Josh,
>
> On 9/29/05 9:54 AM, "Josh Berkus" wrote:
>
> > Following an index creation, we see that 95% of the time required is the
> > external sort, which averages 2mb/s. This is with seperate drives for
> > the WAL, the pg_tmp, the tabl
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 12:03 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> >From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Perhaps I believe this because you can now buy as much sequential I/O
> >as you want. Random I/O is the only real savings.
> >
> 1= No, you can
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 12:03 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> >From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Sep 27, 2005 1:26 PM
> >To: Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
> >
>
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 13:15 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> That Btree can be used to generate a physical reordering of the data
> in one pass, but that's the weakest use for it. The more powerful
> uses involve allowing the Btree to persist and using it for more
> efficient re-searches or combinin
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:25 -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
> I'm getting a new server for our database, and I have a quick question
> about RAID controllers with a battery backed cache. I understand that the
> cache will allow the cache to be written out if the power fails to the box,
> which al
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 08:13 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:35:30 +0530
> "Akshay Mathur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Friends,
> >
> > We were having a database in pgsql7.4.2 The database was responding
> > very slowly even after full vacuum analyze (select count(*)
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 18:56 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 02:27 +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
> > Consider this setup - which is a gross simplification of parts of our
> > production system ;-)
> >
> > create table c (id integer primary key
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 02:27 +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
> Consider this setup - which is a gross simplification of parts of our
> production system ;-)
>
> create table c (id integer primary key);
> create table b (id integer primary key, c_id integer);
> create index b_on_c on b(c_id)
>
>
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 01:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 17:20 +1200, Guy Thornley wrote:
> >> Dont forget that already in postgres, you have a process per connection,
> >> and
> &
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 17:20 +1200, Guy Thornley wrote:
> As for the async IO, sure you might think 'oh async IO would be so cool!!'
> and I did, once, too. But then I sat down and _thought_ about it, and
> decided well, no, actually, theres _very_ few areas it could actually help,
> and in most cas
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 19:31 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Steve,
>
> > I would assume that dbt2 with STP helps minimize the amount of hours
> > someone has to invest to determine performance gains with configurable
> > options?
>
> Actually, these I/O operation issues show up mainly with DW workloa
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 19:12 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:29:01PM -0400, Jignesh Shah wrote:
> >Actually some of that readaheads,etc the OS does already if it does
> >some sort of throttling/clubbing of reads/writes.
>
> Note that I specified the fully cached case--eve
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 22:51 -0400, Alan Stange wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> what are unused item pointers and how do I get rid of them?
>
> We have a fairly large table which is vacuumed daily and reindexed every
> weekend.
> as you can see we have 235M unused item pointers in the main table and a
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:32 +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
>
>
> __
>
> Hi,
>
> Say I have a table with column A, B, C, D
> A has a unique index on it (primary key)
> B and C have a normal index on it
> D has no index
>
> If I
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 10:54 -0400, Ron wrote:
> Maxtor Atlas 15K II's.
> Areca's 1GB buffer RAID cards
The former are SCSI disks and the latter is an SATA controller. The
combination would have a transaction rate of approximately 0.
I can vouch for the Areca controllers, however. You can cert
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 10:46 -0700, Roger Hand wrote:
> The disks are ext3 with journalling type of ordered, but this was later
> changed to writeback with no apparent change in speed.
>
> They're on a Dell poweredge 6650 with LSI raid card, setup as follows:
> 4 disks raid 10 for indexes (145GB)
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 11:15 +0200, Ulrich Wisser wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thanks for all your suggestions.
>
> I can see that the Linux system is 90% waiting for disc io. At that time
> all my queries are *very* slow. My scsi raid controller and disc are
> already the fastest available.
What RAID c
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:39 +0200, Ulrich Wisser wrote:
> Hello,
>
> one of our services is click counting for on line advertising. We do
> this by importing Apache log files every five minutes. This results in a
> lot of insert and delete statements. At the same time our customers
> shall be a
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:47 +, Steve Poe wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Before I say anything else, one online document which may be of
> assistance to you is:
> http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/
>
> Some thoughts I have:
>
> 3) You're shared RAM setting seems overkill to me. Part of the challeng
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 10:46 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dirk,
>
> > does anybody have expierence with this machine (4x 875 dual core Opteron
> > CPUs)?
I'm using dual 275s without problems.
> Nope. I suspect that you may be the first person to report in on
> dual-cores. There may be special
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:34 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> I saw a review of a relatively inexpensive RAM disk over at
> anandtech.com, the Gigabyte i-RAM
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
>
> Basically, it is a PCI card, which takes standard DDR RAM, and has a
> SATA port on
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 21:34 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> Sigh...
>
> I recently upgraded from 7.4.1 to 8.0.3. The application did not change. I'm
> now running both database concurrently (on different ports, same machine) just
> so I could verify the problem really exists.
>
> The application
In our last installment, we saw that JFS provides higher pgbench
performance than either XFS or ext3. Using a direct-I/O patch stolen
from 8.1, JFS achieved 105 tps with 100 clients.
To refresh, the machine in question has 5 7200RPM SATA disks, an Areca
RAID controller with 128MB cache, and 1GB o
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 15:29 -0600, Ron Wills wrote:
> Here's a bit of a dump of the system that should be useful.
>
> Processors x2:
>
> vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
> cpu family : 6
> model : 8
> model name : AMD Athlon(tm) MP 2400+
> stepping: 1
> cpu MHz :
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 15:04 -0600, Ron Wills wrote:
> At Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:45:07 -0700,
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > Ron Wills wrote:
> > > Hello all
> > >
> > > I'm running a postgres 7.4.5, on a dual 2.4Ghz Athlon, 1Gig RAM and
> > > an 3Ware SATA raid.
> >
> > 2 drives?
> > 4 drives?
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:39 -0600, Ron Wills wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I'm running a postgres 7.4.5, on a dual 2.4Ghz Athlon, 1Gig RAM and
> an 3Ware SATA raid. Currently the database is only 16G with about 2
> tables with 50+ row, one table 20+ row and a few small
> tables. The larger tabl
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 00:00 -0700, Karim Nassar wrote:
> I am working on a system that uses postgresql 7.4.2 (can't change that
> until 8.1 goes stable). Just figured out that there are about 285,000
> connections created over about 11 hours every day. That averages out to
> about 7.2 connections p
I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system memory, and
5 7200RPM SATA disks attached to an Areca hardware RAID controller
having 128MB of cach
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:03 +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Jeffrey W. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
> >
> > I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
> > benchmark postgresql 8.0 p
[reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system memory, and
5 7200RPM SATA disks attached to an Areca hardwa
49 matches
Mail list logo
