https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auto-explain.html
-Message d'origine-
De : pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] De la part de Julien Rouhaud
Envoyé : jeudi 28 septembre 2017 11:21
À : Subramaniam C
Cc : pgsql-performance@po
Albe Laurenz wrote
> […]
> Experiment with raising join_collapse_limit and from_collapse_limit to 11.
Thank you, this solve the problem.
> Alternatively, optimize the join order by hand and don't tune the parameters.
What is surprising is that there is no apparent/logical optimal strategy.
Bes
Hi,
I'm new in this mailing list, sorry if my post is not well formed.
First of all, I would thank all the team and the contributors
around PostgreSQL for their work.
My question…
The explain analyze of the following code is https://explain.depesz.com/s/VhOv
✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯✂⋯
WIT
ll check back in a day or two with feedback.
Thanks,
Matt
____
From: Pavy Philippe [philippe.p...@worldline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:45 PM
To: Ray Stell; Matthew Spilich
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: RE : [PERFORM] Stalls on PGSemaphoreLock
Hello
Hello
Recently I have a similar problem. The first symptom was a freeze of the
connection and 100% of CPU SYS during 2 et 10 minutes, 1 or 2 times per day.
Connection impossible, slow query. The strace on one backend show a very long
system call on semop().
We have a node with 48 cores dans 128
om char or text variable in pgbench
?
Thanks by advance for any help.
Best regards.
Philippe Beaudoin.
hi,
Perhaps in postgresql.conf :
default_transaction_read_only
regards
philippe
Le 19/04/2011 00:08, Stefan Keller a écrit :
I browsed the faq and looked at PostgreSQL performance books but I
could not find the obvious:
How to configure a read-only database server?
I have a single-disk
On 19/08/2010 12:23, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
On 19/08/2010 11:51, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Philippe Rimbault
wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server
compared to
my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new s
On 19/08/2010 11:51, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server compared to
my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new server :
- OS : GNU/Linux Debian Etch x
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server
compared to my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new server :
- OS : GNU/Linux Debian Etch x86_64
- kernel : Linux 2.6.26-2-vserver-amd64 #1 SMP Sun Jun 20 20:40:33
UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
(tests ar
Greg,
First : thank you for you help.
On 22/07/2010 15:32, Greg Smith wrote:
Philippe Rimbault wrote:
I have one thousand inherited tables like this one (with a different
check constraint on each) :
The PostgreSQL partitioning system is aimed to support perhaps a
hundred inherited tables
.0.003 rows=1 loops=5)"
"Index Cond: (l.id = documents.id_location)"
"-> Materialize (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual
time=0.002..0.002 rows=1 loops=5)"
" -> Index Scan using pk_sources on sources
(cost=0.00..
Oups! searching on the mailing list show me that it's a known problem ...
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-07/msg00063.php
sorry !
On 22/07/2010 09:52, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using Postgresql 8.4.4 on Debian.
In postgresql.conf, constraint_ex
uments.id_source)"
"-> Index Scan using locations_pkey on locations l
(cost=0.00..0.27 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=1 loops=5)"
" Index Cond: (l.id = documents.id_location)"
"Total runtime: 0.091 ms"
Is it a
Hi all,
using mkfs.ext3 I can use "-T" to tune the filesytem
mkfs.ext3 -T fs_type ...
fs_type are in /etc/mke2fs.conf (on debian)
is there a recommended setting for this parameter ???
thanks
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Le vendredi 14 septembre 2007 à 11:09 +0800, Ow Mun Heng a écrit :
> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 08:33 +0530, Harsh Azad wrote:
> > ah.. thanks. Didn't realize table spaces can be mentioned while
> > creating a index. BTW, are soft links ok to use for pg_clog /
> > pg_xlog . I moved the existing director
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2007 à 13:37 -0300, André Gomes Lamas Otero a
écrit :
> I don't this so, because DB2 is running on a Sun Sparc T1 processor
> (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) that's implements much
> more features, like thread level parelelism, than AMD Opteron.
>
> the DB2
am I wrong or DB2 9.1 is faster on less powerfull hardware ?
Le lundi 09 juillet 2007 à 11:57 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
> postgresql against other databases.
>
> http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/
Selon Richard Huxton :
> philippe wrote:
> > explain analyse
> > select count(*) from client_contact
> > left join client_company using(cli_id)
> > where (cli_mail = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]') OR
> > (lower(cli_nom) = 'xx
Hi
I'm using posstgresql 8.1.4 on linux 2.6
shared_buffers = tested with 3000 and 1
temp_buffers = 1000
work_mem = 4096
effective_cache_size = 65536
random_page_cost = 2
I have a query which I think is anormaly slow with à 'OR'
select count(*) from client_contact
left join client_company us
jython is a full rewrite of python in java and interface naturally with
java classes, therefore hibernate ... and is just as easy as python.
Steinar H. Gunderson a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:31:25PM +0200, PFC wrote:
So, one wonders why some use 70's languages like Java i
Do you have a hw reference that runs that fast (5 x 30 = 150MB/s) ?
Luke Lonergan a écrit :
Joshua,
On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
second READ! performance. That is with 6 SC
Hi,
I'm running version 8.1 on a dedicated Sun v20 server (2 AMD x64's)
with 4Gb of RAM. I have recently noticed that the performance of
some more complex queries is extremely variable and irregular.
For example, I currently have a query that returns a small number
of rows (5) by joining a dozen
Can I actully know whether a given plan is excuted with GEQO on ?
In other words, if I launch 'explain ', I'll get a given plan, but if I
re-launch
the (withtout the 'explain' keyword), could I get a different
plan given that GEQO induces some randomness ?
>Is it the plan that is different in
erall average
is much lower.
I'll also try to play with the geqo parameters and see if things
improve.
Thanks again,
J-P
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: January 11, 2006 6:03 PM
To: Jean-Philippe Côté
Cc: pgsql-p
Hi,
I'm running version 8.1 on a dedicated Sun v20 server (2 AMD x64's)
with 4Gb of RAM. I have recently noticed that the performance of
some more complex queries is extremely variable and irregular.
For example, I currently have a query that returns a small number
of rows (5) by joining a dozen
.
regards
--
Philippe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Taylor
Sent: mercredi 22 juin 2005 08:13
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] slow simple update?
Hi there,
I'm doing an update of ~30,000 rows and she takes
27 matches
Mail list logo
