how about your harddisks??
you could get a little help from a RAID10 SAS 15k disks. if you don't even
have RAID, it would help a lot!
Lucas.
2011/11/8 Sam Gendler
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all your responses.
>
>
Am 08.11.2011 13:15, schrieb Mohamed Hashim:
Hi Sam,Tomas
In my first post i have mentioned all how much shared (shared buffers,
effective cache size, work mem, etc.) and my OS and hardware
information and what are the basic settings i have changed
and regarding Explain analyze i gave one sa
On 8 Listopad 2011, 13:15, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
> Hi Sam,Tomas
>
> In my first post i have mentioned all how much shared (shared buffers,
> effective cache size, work mem, etc.) and my OS and hardware information
> and what are the basic settings i have changed
Sorry, I've missed that first messa
Hi Sam,Tomas
In my first post i have mentioned all how much shared (shared buffers,
effective cache size, work mem, etc.) and my OS and hardware information
and what are the basic settings i have changed
and regarding Explain analyze i gave one sample query because if i tune
that particular table
On 8 Listopad 2011, 4:21, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all your responses.
>
> Sorry for late response
>
> Earlier we used Postgres8.3.10 with Desktop computer (as server) and
> configuration of the system (I2 core with 4GB RAM) and also the
> application
> was slow i dint change
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all your responses.
>
> Sorry for late response
>
> Earlier we used Postgres8.3.10 with Desktop computer (as server) and
> configuration of the system (I2 core with 4GB RAM) and also the applicat
Hi all,
Thanks for all your responses.
Sorry for late response
Earlier we used Postgres8.3.10 with Desktop computer (as server) and
configuration of the system (I2 core with 4GB RAM) and also the application
was slow i dint change any postgres config settings.
May be because of low config We t
Am 03.11.2011 17:08, schrieb Tomas Vondra:
On 3 Listopad 2011, 16:02, Mario Weilguni wrote:
No doubt about that, querying tables using conditions on array columns is
not the best direction in most cases, especially when those tables are
huge.
Still, the interesting part here is that the OP clai
On 3 Listopad 2011, 16:02, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> Am 02.11.2011 08:12, schrieb Mohamed Hashim:
>> Dear All
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestions & replies.
>>
>> The below are the sample query which i put for particular one bill_id
>>
>> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abd.bill_no as
>> bill_no,to_char(abd.bil
Am 02.11.2011 08:12, schrieb Mohamed Hashim:
Dear All
Thanks for your suggestions & replies.
The below are the sample query which i put for particular one bill_id
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abd.bill_no as
bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS date,mp.product_desc as
product_desc,std.qua
Mohamed Hashim writes:
> The below are the sample query which i put for particular one bill_id
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abd.bill_no as
> bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS date,mp.product_desc as
> product_desc,std.quantity,std.area,rip.price AS rate
> FROM acc_bill_items_106 abi
>
Dear All
Thanks for your suggestions & replies.
The below are the sample query which i put for particular one bill_id
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abd.bill_no as
bill_no,to_char(abd.bill_date,'dd/mm/') AS date,mp.product_desc as
product_desc,std.quantity,std.area,rip.price AS rate
FROM acc_bill_it
Marcus Engene writes:
> After I upgraded from Postgres 8.3/8.4 to 9.0 I had all sorts of
> problems with queries with many joins. Queries that used to take 1ms
> suddenly take half a minute for no apparent reason.
Could we see a concrete test case, rather than hand waving? If there's
really a
On 1 Listopad 2011, 10:57, Marcus Engene wrote:
> Hi Hashim,
>
> One workaround I've done is if something looking like this
>
> select
> ...
> from
> table_linking_massive_table tlmt
> ,massive_table mt
> ,some_table1 st1
> ,some_table2 st2
> ,some_table3 st3
> ,so
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 08:33:51AM +0530, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
> Any idea or suggestions how to improve my database best
> performance.???
>
> Regards
> Hashim
>
Hi Hashim,
Ignoring the description of your tables, you should probably try
updating to the latest release 9.0.5. You
Hi Hashim,
After I upgraded from Postgres 8.3/8.4 to 9.0 I had all sorts of
problems with queries with many joins. Queries that used to take 1ms
suddenly take half a minute for no apparent reason.
I have 72GB which I think makes the planner go bonkers and be too eager
doing a seq scan. I tri
Any idea or suggestions how to improve my database best
performance.???
Regards
Hashim
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Mohamed Hashim wrote:
> Thanks Alban & Gregg.
>
>
> i will describe little more about that table
>
>
>- We are using PHP application with Apache server & P
Thanks Alban & Gregg.
i will describe little more about that table
- We are using PHP application with Apache server & Postgresql 9.0.3 in a
dedicated server.
- stk_source table is mainly used to track the transactions from parent
to child
Table "_100
Actually we are using various views and functions to get the info for
reporting purpose in that views or functions we have used or joined the
above table mentioned.
I thought of will get reply from any one from the lists so only i put anyway
i will continue with only pgsql-performance mailing list
what sort of queries you are running against it ? the select * from..
is not really (hopefully) a query you are running from your php app.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-p
I have Quadcore server with 8GB RAM
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 44
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5607 @ 2.27GHz
stepping: 2
cpu MHz : 1197.000
cache size : 8192 KB
MemTotal:8148636 kB
MemFree: 4989
Arash,
> We are having a performance problem with our database. The problem
> exists when we include a constraint in GCTBALLOT. The constraint is as
> follows:
You posted twice, to three different mailing lists each time. This is
discourteous. Please do not do so again, as people may not help
Hi All,
We are having a performance problem with our database. The problem
exists when we include a constraint in GCTBALLOT. The constraint is as
follows:
alter table GCTBALLOT
add constraint FK_GCTBALLOT_GCTWEBU foreign key (GCTWEBU_SRL)
references GCTWEBU (SRL)
on delete restrict
23 matches
Mail list logo
