Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: tuning questions

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Jack Coates <jack(at)lyris(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tuning questions
Date: 2003-12-05 17:26:05
Message-ID: 200312050926.05155.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Jack,

> The frustrating thing is, we also have a UP P3-500 with 512M RAM and two
> IDE drives with the same PG install which is doing okay with this load
> -- still half the speed of MS-SQL2K, but usable. I'm at a loss.

Overall, I'm really getting the feeling that this procedure was optimized for 
Oracle and/or MSSQL and is hitting some things that aren't such a good idea 
for PostgreSQL.   I highly suggest that you try using log_duration and 
log_statement (and in 7.4 log_min_duration_statement) to try to locate which 
particular statements are taking the longest.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2003-12-05 17:28:30
Subject: Re: Slow UPADTE, compared to INSERT
Previous:From: Mike C. FletcherDate: 2003-12-05 17:12:07
Subject: Re: Slow UPADTE, compared to INSERT

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-12-05 17:40:37
Subject: Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables,
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-12-05 17:04:00
Subject: Re: 7.4.1 ... slight change of scheduale ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group