Re: [PERFORM] pg_trgm performance

2007-02-24 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:04:36AM +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: > Could you post EXPLAIN ANALYZE for both queries (after 2 or 3 runs)? GIST version, short: amarok=# explain analyze select count(*) from tags where title % 'foo'; QUERY PLAN

Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem

2007-02-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Geoffrey wrote: > Guillaume Smet wrote: >> On 2/23/07, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get >>> our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. >> >> You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea >> to upgrade onl

[PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Carlos Moreno
Say that I have a dual-core processor (AMD64), with, say, 2GB of memory to run PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on Fedora Core X. I have the option to put two hard disks (SATA2, most likely); I'm wondering what would be the optimal configuration from the point of view of performance. I do have the option

Re: [PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Tom Lane
Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The question is: does PostgreSQL have separate, independent areas that > require storage such that performance would be noticeably boosted if > the multiple storage operations could be done simultaneously? The standard advice in this area is to put pg_xl

Re: [PERFORM] Two hard drives --- what to do with them?

2007-02-24 Thread Alexander Staubo
On Feb 25, 2007, at 04:39 , Carlos Moreno wrote: I do have the option to configure it in RAID-0, but I'm sort of reluctant; I think there's the possibility that having two filesystems that can be accessed truly simultaneously can be more beneficial. The question is: does PostgreSQL have