On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Ron Arts wrote:
> Op 30-01-12 02:52, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa schreef:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ron Arts wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I am running PostgreSQL 8.1 (CentOS 5.7) on a VM on a single XCP
>>&
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ron Arts wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I am running PostgreSQL 8.1 (CentOS 5.7) on a VM on a single XCP (Xenserver)
> host.
> This is a HP server with 8GB, Dual Quad Core, and 2 SATA in RAID-1.
>
> The problem is: it's running very slow compared to running it on bare meta
Greetings,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jayashankar K B
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I downloaded the source code and cross compiled it into a relocatable package
> and copied it to the device.
> LTIB was the cross-compile tool chain that was used. Controller is coldfire
> MCF54418 CPU.
> Here is the
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Andrzej Nakonieczny
wrote:
> W dniu 20.07.2011 17:57, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa pisze:
>
> [...]
>
>> Many of the advantages of partitioning have to do with maintenance
>> tasks. For example, if you gather data on a daily bas
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa
> wrote:
> > So, the question is, if I were to store 8TB worth of data into large
> > objects system, it would actually make the pg_largeobject table slow,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 15:34 +0200, vincent dephily wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a delete query taking 7.2G of ram (and counting) but I do not
> >> understant why so much memory is necessary. The server has 12G, and
> >> I'm afraid it'll g
Hi!
Thanks (you both, Samuel and Craig) for your answers!
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Craig James
wrote:
> On 6/19/11 4:37 AM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa
> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I
Greetings,
I have been thinking a lot about pgsql performance when it is dealing
with tables with lots of rows on one table (several millions, maybe
thousands of millions). Say, the Large Object use case:
one table has large objects (have a pointer to one object).
The large object table stores t
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>
>> The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent over multiple tries
>
> I've seen that twice on 4 core systems now. The spot where there's just one
> more thread than cores seems to be the worst case for cache thr
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>>
>>> model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor @ 3.00GHz
>>> cpu cores : 4
>>> stream compiled with -O3
>>> Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time
>>>
Hi!
Thanks for the review link!
Ildefonso.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This isn't an older Opteron, its 6 core, 6MB L3 cache "Istanbul". Its not
> the newer stuff either.
>
>
> Everything before Magny Cours is now an older Optero
Hi!
Thanks you all for this great amount of information!
What memory/motherboard (ie, chipset) is installed on the phenom ii one?
it looks like it peaks to ~6.2GB/s with 4 threads.
Also, what kernel is on it? (uname -a would be nice).
Now, this looks like sustained memory speed, what about ran
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote:
>>
>> But the select count(*) query, cached in RAM is 3x faster in one system
>> than the other. The CPUs aren't 3x different performance wise. Something
>> else may be wrong here.
>>
>> An individual Core2 Duo 2.93Ghz
13 matches
Mail list logo
