Such a query takes a disappointing long time to aggregate. This also has
the disadvantage that if we wanted to expand my_table we'd have to do an
inner join further decreasing performance.
I see that in 2013 there was a talk (
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/Next%20generation%20of%20GIN.pdf)
about ordered GIN indexes which seems perfect for our case, but I can't see
any progress or updates on that.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to approach this in a for performant way
with the Postgres we have today?
Thank you,
Rory.
sizes.
Rory
On 09/03/12, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote:
> ...An ancillary question is whether a 4096 block size is a good idea.
> I suppose we will be using XFS which I understand has a default block
> size of 4096 bytes.
>
On 09/03/12, Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> wrote:
> > I've taken the liberty of reposting this message as my addendum to a
> > long thread that I started on the subject of adding a new db server to
>
001135.30
163840017.61001127.56
655360061.39000982.39
1310720079.27000634.16
------
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 6311 555
3 Tottenham Street Lond
000634.16
--
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 6311 555
3 Tottenham Street London W1T 2AF
Registered in England No. 04551928
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your su
On 04/03/12, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote:
> I'd be grateful for advice on specifying a new server
>
...
> The existing server is a 2 x Quad core E5420 Xeon (2.5GHz) with 8GB of
> RAM with an LSI battery-backed RAID 10 array of 4no 10K SCSI disks,
> p
On 05/03/12, Craig James (cja...@emolecules.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange <
> r...@campbell-lange.net> wrote:
>
> > We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
> > performance so I can't describe it.
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> wrote:
> > On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
...
[Description of system with 2 * 4 core Xeons, 8GB RAM, LSI card with
4*15K SCSI drives in
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> wrote:
> > [About existing server...] We would get faster performance, I
> > believe, by providing more RAM. Sorry -- I should have some pg_bench
> > output
15K SAS disk
options. Assuming that I can get the BBU for the Areca card, and that
15K SAS disks are available, I'd be grateful for comments on this
configuration.
Regards
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 63
B RAM
Cost around 2320 GBP -- it would be great to get it under 2000
Needs to be in the UK.
I would be grateful for any comments. I'm particularly out of date about
the best processors to go for. DNUK also have Opteron as an option.
Rory
---(end of
Hi Steve
On 08/12/05, Steve Poe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rory,
>
> While I don't have my specific stats with my from my tests with XFS and
> bonnie for our company's db server, I do recall vividly that seq. output
> did not increase dramatically until I
l the sequential input (around 11K/sec) looks
good while the sequential output (around 5K/sec) looks fairly
average.
Advice and comments gratefully received.
Suggested Parameters for running pg_bench would be great!
Thanks,
Rory
The server has a dual core AMD Opteron 270 chip (2000MHz), 6GB o
f just another file on the same FS that is probably closer to
> >the current head position.
>
> I would argue that you should benchmark it instead of speculating.
Is there a good way of benchmarking? We don't have much in the way of
test data at present.
Regards,
Rory
Hi August. Thanks very much for your mail.
On 06/12/05, August Zajonc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> >The server has a 250GB RAID10 (LSI 320-I + BBU) volume which I am
> >thinking of slicing up in the following way (Linux 2.6 kernel):
> >
&g
/data and /postgres
logical volumes as needed.
Are there any major pitfalls to this approach?
Thanks,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignor
then make a +/- 200GB LVM VG and then slice that initially into a
100GB ext3 data directory and a 50GB xfs postgres data area, giving
100GB to use between these as they grow. I haven't used LVM with xfs
before, however.
Advice gratefully received.
Rory
---(end of
On 09/06/05, Matthew Nuzum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Disks:
> >
> > I'm somewhat confused here. I've followed the various notes about SATA
> > vs SCSI and it seems that SCSI is the way to
On 09/06/05, William Yu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> > ... Some have suggested that a single dual core processor is the way
> > to go. The RAM needs to fit the CPU arrangement too; William points
> > out that one needs 2 DIMMS per CPU.
>
rriage : PC System Carriage (UK only) for 1U Server
Thanks for any further comments,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Hard Disk / 8MB Cache
250GB SATA-150 7200RPM Hard Disk / 8MB Cache
Slimline 8x DVD / 24x CD-ROM Drive
Standard 3yr (UK) Next Business Day On-site Warranty
I would be grateful for any comments about this config.
Kind regards,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EM
performance. I don't
require anything spectacular, just good speedy general performance.
I imagine dedicating around 25% of RAM to Shared Memory and 2-4% for
Sort memory.
Comments and advice gratefully received.
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
22 matches
Mail list logo