Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1762E006B for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 04:39:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87320-08 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 04:38:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail129167.authsmtp.com (outmail129167.authsmtp.com [62.13.129.167]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA4F2E0075 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 04:39:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail128183.authsmtp.com (outmail128183.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.183]) by punt3.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id lB78cwr6037805; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:38:58 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.3] (85-211-24-246.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.24.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id lB78cvVV055897; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:38:57 GMT Subject: Re: database tuning From: Simon Riggs To: kelvan Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:39:20 +0000 Message-Id: <1197016760.4255.474.camel@ebony.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: da221eb1-a49f-11dc-814e-001185d377ca X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksadBtFaAJbaVxS HGQLW1NEUFV7Wmt/ bgIfZQBDYEtPQQdu TkpNRE1QERpoT0Bz ARZNFH8UdwBDcHd3 K0djVngVCBV4d0co EE9JRGkPM3phaTRM TUhZc1ZJcANLfxdA PlN4UyBcLwdSbGoL JyIJERcLGAAXJC1J SwsENl9aXVsNHzgz L2Fs X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk:787/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system! X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/95 X-Sequence-Number: 27911 On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:45 +1200, kelvan wrote: > hi i need to know all the database overhead sizes and block header sizes etc > etc as I have a very complex database to build and it needs to be speed > tuned beyond reckoning If your need-for-speed is so high, I would suggest using 8.3 or at least looking at the 8.3 documentation. This release is very nearly production and is much faster than 8.1 or 8.2. You may not have realised that Postgres dot releases are actually major releases and have significant speed differences. There's not much to be done about the overheads you mention, so best to concentrate your efforts on index planning for your most frequently executed queries. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com