I know I am sticking my nose in an area here that I have not been
involved in but
this issue is important to me.
Chethana I have a couple of questions based on what you said you are
using as a
platform. see below :
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:
>> Thank you for responding quickly. I really need ur help.
> Please make sure you cc: the list - I don't read this inbox regularly.
>> Sir, here r the answers for ur questions, please do tell me what
>> to do
>> next(regarding increasing performance of postgresql), so that I can
>> proceed further.
>> How are you using PostgreSQL?
>> We r using 7.4.3 with max of (512*6) around 3000 records.
> Max of what are (512*6)? Rows? Tables? Sorry - I don't understand
> what you mean here.
> Oh, and upgrade to the latest release of 7.4.x - there are
> important bugfixes.
>> How many concurrent users?
>> It configures for 100, but we r using 4 or 5 only.
>> Mostly updates or small selects or large summary reports?
>> Update,delete,insert operations.
>> What hardware do you have?
>> X86 based, 233 MHz, 256 MB RAM.
What Operating System are you running this on??
How much "other" stuff or applications are you running on the box
Is this a IDE hard drive system?? SCSI?? Bus Speed?? is it a older
server or a pc??
You dont have a large database at all but quick access to the data
that is residing in
the database has a lot to do with how the hardware is configured and
what other programs
are using the limited system resources!
> Hmm - not blazing fast, but it'll certainly run on that.
>> What configuration changes have you made?
>> No changes, we've used default settings.
> That will need changing. As Gourish suggested in another reply,
> read the notes here:
> You'll want to be careful with the memory settings given that
> you've only got 256MB to play with. Don't allocate too much to
> PostgreSQL itself, let the o.s. cache some files for you.
>> Are you having problems with all queries or only some?
>> Only some queries, particularly foreign key.
> Are you happy that there are indexes on the referring side of the
> foreign key where necessary? The primary keys you reference will
> have indexes on them, the other side will not unless you add them
>> Have you checked the plans for these with EXPLAIN ANALYSE?
> That would be something worth doing then. Find a bad query, run
> EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT ... and post a new question with the output
> and details of the tables involved.
>> Have you made sure your tables are vacuumed and analysed?
> Good. With the limited amount of RAM you have, you'll want to use
> it as efficiently as possible.
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
> ---------------------------(end of
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: ryan groth||Date: 2006-02-22 17:26:47|
|Subject: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres?|
|Previous:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2006-02-22 17:11:50|
|Subject: Re: Good News re count(*) in 8.1|