X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93FF52862 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:59:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54479-08 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:59:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.200]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E144E5282E for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:59:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i22so1232900wra for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:59:54 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mHxzDy9dqCkijBt/ujQWiXMjEQeiB3ahk3mVaSeSOrBm1YdVKmlEjlZoVWSQQHJEo2XmdE6Wa4JF//3vwX2i65EFJanqxLmjNPenDT3Mqf2ZgLJf4HLSl0pmmBgPVb0rGkZ7Q7WEV79NYZuHXr+mXv7KJvYjy7Xac3NiDjNVKTs= Received: by 10.54.144.9 with SMTP id r9mr4401173wrd; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.86.15 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33c6269f050816105957ae5d6f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:59:53 -0400 From: Alex Turner To: Ulrich Wisser Subject: Re: Need for speed Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <430208AE.7080100@relevanttraffic.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <430208AE.7080100@relevanttraffic.se> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.106 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, RCVD_BY_IP=0.024] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/179 X-Sequence-Number: 13926 Are you calculating aggregates, and if so, how are you doing it (I ask the question from experience of a similar application where I found that my aggregating PGPLSQL triggers were bogging the system down, and changed them so scheduled jobs instead). Alex Turner NetEconomist On 8/16/05, Ulrich Wisser wrote: > Hello, >=20 > one of our services is click counting for on line advertising. We do > this by importing Apache log files every five minutes. This results in a > lot of insert and delete statements. At the same time our customers > shall be able to do on line reporting. >=20 > We have a box with > Linux Fedora Core 3, Postgres 7.4.2 > Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz > 2 scsi 76GB disks (15.000RPM, 2ms) >=20 > I did put pg_xlog on another file system on other discs. >=20 > Still when several users are on line the reporting gets very slow. > Queries can take more then 2 min. >=20 > I need some ideas how to improve performance in some orders of > magnitude. I already thought of a box with the whole database on a ram > disc. So really any idea is welcome. >=20 > Ulrich >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Ulrich Wisser / System Developer >=20 > RELEVANT TRAFFIC SWEDEN AB, Riddarg 17A, SE-114 57 Sthlm, Sweden > Direct (+46)86789755 || Cell (+46)704467893 || Fax (+46)86789769 > ________________________________________________________________ > http://www.relevanttraffic.com >=20 > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >