X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19959DC984 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:10:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64042-09 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:10:42 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D9A9DC9F8 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:10:39 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A0C3739841; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:10:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:10:25 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: arnaulist@andromeiberica.com Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Where is my bottleneck? Message-ID: <20060130201025.GA3920@pervasive.com> References: <43D67496.2020203@androme.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43D67496.2020203@androme.es> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099] X-Spam-Score: 0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/479 X-Sequence-Number: 16957 On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:40:22PM +0100, Arnau Rebassa Villalonga wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a performance problem and I don't know where is my bottleneck. > I have postgresql 7.4.2 running on a debian server with kernel You should really upgrade to the latest 7.4 version. You're probably vulnerable to some data-loss issues. > 2.4.26-1-686-smp with two Xeon(TM) at 2.80GHz and 4GB of RAM and a RAID > 5 made with SCSI disks. Maybe its not the latest hardware but I think Generally speaking, databases (or anything else that does a lot of random writes) don't like RAID5. > My problem is that the general performance is not good enough and I > don't know where is the bottleneck. It could be because the queries are > not optimized as they should be, but I also think it can be a postgresql > configuration problem or hardware problem (HDs not beeing fast enough, > not enough RAM, ... ) What kind of performance are you expecting? What are you actually seeing? > The configuration of postgresql is the default, I tried to tune the > postgresql.conf and the results where disappointing, so I left again the > default values. Probably not so good... you'll most likely want to tune shared_buffers, sort_mem and effective_cache_size at a minimum. Granted, that might not be your current bottleneck, but it would probably be your next. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461