On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 05:42:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> hold of these dead rows instead of recycling them. I suspect you have
> a client process somewhere that is holding an open transaction for a
> long time ... probably not doing anything, just sitting there with an
> unclosed BEGIN ...
Wh
Josh Berkus writes:
> Harry,
Many thanks for your response,
>
> >It has been suggested to me that I resubmit this question to this list,
> > rather than the GENERAL list it was originaly sent to.
> >
> >I asked earlier about ways of doing an UPDATE involving a left outer
> > join and
Harry Broomhall wrote:
> #effective_cache_size = 1000# typically 8KB each
> #random_page_cost = 4 # units are one sequential page fetch cost
You must tune the first one at least. Try
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html to tune these
parameters.
>>2) The EXPLAIN
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 05:42:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
hold of these dead rows instead of recycling them. I suspect you have
a client process somewhere that is holding an open transaction for a
long time ... probably not doing anything, just sitting there with an
unclos
Shridhar Daithankar writes:
> Harry Broomhall wrote:
> > #effective_cache_size = 1000# typically 8KB each
> > #random_page_cost = 4 # units are one sequential page fetch cost
>
> You must tune the first one at least. Try
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html t
The machine is going to be used for a pretty large database (well over 100
tables with some of them containing over a million records from the start,
number of tables and records will grow (much?) larger in the future). This
database is going to be used by a pretty large number of employees. The
nu
Alexander Priem wrote:
Dell PowerEdge 1750 machine with Intel Xeon CPU at 3 GHz and 4 GB of RAM.
This machine will contain a PERC4/Di RAID controller with 128MB of battery
backed cache memory. The O/S and logfiles will be placed on a RAID-1 setup
of two 36Gb SCSI-U320 drives (15.000rpm). Database d
I have considered Opteron, yes. But I think there are too many
uncertainties, like :
* It's a new CPU that has not proven itself yet.
* I don't think I can buy directly from IBM (according to their site), so
how about support (24x7) ? This will be very important to our client.
* I need to install
Alexander Priem wrote:
I have considered Opteron, yes. But I think there are too many
uncertainties, like :
* It's a new CPU that has not proven itself yet.
* I don't think I can buy directly from IBM (according to their site), so
how about support (24x7) ? This will be very important to our client
Shridhar Daithankar writes:
First - many thanks for your suggestions and pointers to further info.
I have been trying some of them with some interesting results!
> Harry Broomhall wrote:
> > #effective_cache_size = 1000# typically 8KB each
> > #random_page_cost = 4 # units are on
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 20:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm working on the demo session for our upcoming presentation at PHPCon.
>
> As a side issue, we ended up comparing 3 versions of the same search screen:
>
> 1) All in PHP with views;
> 2) Using a function to build a query and count
Title: Tuning for mid-size server
Hi,
Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
I am planning for these values for the postgres configuration - to begin with:
Shared_buffers (25% of RAM
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Alexander Priem wrote:
> The machine is going to be used for a pretty large database (well over 100
> tables with some of them containing over a million records from the start,
> number of tables and records will grow (much?) larger in the future). This
> database is going to
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 15:28, Anjan Dave wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
You'll want to upgrade PG to v7.3.4
> I am planning for these values for the postgres co
Anjan,
> Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have
5+ drives. Or a large battery-backed cache.
Also, last I ch
Robert,
> > 1) 0.19687 seconds
> > 2) 0.20667 seconds
> > 3) 0.20594 seconds
>
> Is this measuring time in the back-end or total time of script
> execution?
Total time of execution, e.g. from clicking the "enter" button to displaying
the list of matches. Any other comparison would be misleading
Hi Tom,
1.)
OK. We have narrowed it down.
We did a few (like 5 to 8 times) vacuum analyze (no full), the
pg_statistics relfilenode grew. There was no database operation when
we did this, no other client connections except the one that does
the vacuum.
If we do plain simple "vacuum " (again no ful
Seum-Lim Gan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We did a few (like 5 to 8 times) vacuum analyze (no full), the
> pg_statistics relfilenode grew.
Well, sure. ANALYZE puts new rows into pg_statistic, and obsoletes old
ones. You need to vacuum pg_statistic every so often (not to mention
the other syste
Harry Broomhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>-> Index Scan using import_cdrs_cdr_id_key on import_cdrs (cost=0.00..52.00
> rows=1000 width=164) (actual time=0.42..11479.51 rows=335671 loops=1)
>-> Seq Scan on import_cdrs (cost=0.00..8496.71 rows=335671 width=126) (actual
> time=0.15
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> > internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
>
> How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have
> 5+ dri
From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
exist with the newer postgres...
Concurrent users will start from 1 to a high of 5000 or more, and could
ramp up rapidly. So far, with increased users, we have gone up to
starting the JVM (resin startup) with 1024megs min and ma
Josh,
The 6650 can have upto 32GB of RAM.
There are 5 drives. In future, they will be replaced by a fiber array -
hopefully.
I read an article that suggests you 'start' with 25% of memory for
shared_buffers. Sort memory was suggested to be at 2-4%. Here's the
link:
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/d
Scott,
> Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
True.
> Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> time now, and so has the linux kernel. It uses a paging method to do it.
> Individual processe
Rhaoni,
> The delphi program does just one commit for all queries .
> I was wandering if ther is some configuration parameters to be changed to
> improve the performance ?
To help you, we'll need to to trap a query and run an EXPLAIN ANALYZE on it.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Fr
Anjan,
> I read an article that suggests you 'start' with 25% of memory for
> shared_buffers. Sort memory was suggested to be at 2-4%. Here's the
> link:
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/node8.html
> Maybe, I misinterpreted it.
No, I can see how you arrived at that concl
Anjan,
> From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
> exist with the newer postgres...
What? PostgreSQL has always used the kernel cache for queries.
> Concurrent users will start from 1 to a high of 5000 or more, and could
> ramp up rapidly. So far, with increased us
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> > performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
>
> True.
>
> > Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> > time now, and so has the linux kerne
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
> > exist with the newer postgres...
>
> What? PostgreSQL has always used the kernel cache for queries.
>
> > Concurrent users will start from 1 to a high of 5000 or mor
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:12:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit
> vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB barrier", and even
> I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit vendors, then, are talking
> ab
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:15:57AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > I read an article that suggests you 'start' with 25% of memory for
> > shared_buffers. Sort memory was suggested to be at 2-4%. Here's the
> > link:
> > http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/node8.html
>
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:12:15 -0700
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the
> 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB
> barrier", and even I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit
> vendors, then, are ta
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the "25%" rule of thumb is slightly stale: above some
> threshold, it just falls apart, and lots of people now have machines
> well within that threshold. Heck, I'll bet Bruce's 2-way machine is
> within that threshold.
IIRC, we've not seen mu
Andrew,
> I think the "25%" rule of thumb is slightly stale: above some
> threshold, it just falls apart, and lots of people now have machines
> well within that threshold. Heck, I'll bet Bruce's 2-way machine is
> within that threshold.
Sure. But we had a few people on this list do tests (incl
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 08:40, scott.marlowe wrote:
> So that brings up my question, which is better, the Perc4 or Perc3
> controllers, and what's the difference between them? I find Dell's
> tendency to hide other people's hardware behind their own model numbers
> mildly bothersome, as it makes
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:12:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM?
> ... Remember that, back in the old days on the
> pre-386s, accessing the extended or expanded memory (anyone remember
> which was whi
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) wrote:
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the
> 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB
> barrier", and even I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit
> vendors, then, are talking a
Josh,
The app servers are seperate dual-cpu boxes with 2GB RAM on each.
Yes, from all the responses i have seen, i will be reducing the numbers to what has
been suggested.
Thanks to all,
anjan
-Original Message-
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
Hopefully, i am not steering this into a different direction, but is there a way to
find out how much sort memory each query is taking up, so that we can scale that up
with increasing users?
THanks,
Anjan
-Original Message-
From: scott.marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Oct 2003, Will LaShell wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 08:40, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> > So that brings up my question, which is better, the Perc4 or Perc3
> > controllers, and what's the difference between them? I find Dell's
> > tendency to hide other people's hardware behind their own
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:51:02AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Of course, if you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, then the
> only way to work this would be to have OSDL help us sort it out.
Nope. I too have such anecdotal evidence that 25% is way too high.
It also seems to depend pretty
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:51:02AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Of course, if you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, then the
> > only way to work this would be to have OSDL help us sort it out.
>
> Nope. I too have such anecdotal evidence
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 13:36, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2003, Will LaShell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 08:40, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > So that brings up my question, which is better, the Perc4 or Perc3
> > > controllers, and what's the difference between them? I find Dell's
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
In our case, we were noti
Scott,
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
I've found that that question makes the difference between using 6% & 12% ...
p
I'm running our DBT-2 workload against PostgreSQL 7.3.4 and I'm having
some trouble figuring out what I should be looking for when I'm trying
to tune the database. I have results for a decent baseline, but when I
try to increase the load on the database, the performance drops.
Nothing in the graph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm running our DBT-2 workload against PostgreSQL 7.3.4 and I'm having
> some trouble figuring out what I should be looking for when I'm trying
> to tune the database. I have results for a decent baseline, but when I
> try to increase the load on the database, the perfor
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:35:56PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm running our DBT-2 workload against PostgreSQL 7.3.4 and I'm having
> > some trouble figuring out what I should be looking for when I'm trying
> > to tune the database. I have results for a decent base
47 matches
Mail list logo
