Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D501512B5666 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 21:41:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from li339-205.members.linode.com ([96.126.114.205] helo=squeakycode.net) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SmwcN-000786-QZ for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:41:57 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.102] (50-83-220-125.client.mchsi.com [50.83.220.125]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: andy) by squeakycode.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4652BC8BC1; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FF63444.4030200@squeakycode.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:41:40 -0500 From: Andy Colson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samuel Gendler CC: Reza Taheri , Robert Klemme , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: The need for clustered indexes to boost TPC-V performance References: <66CE997FB523C04E9749452273184C6C137CB88A86@exch-mbx-113.vmware.com> <66CE997FB523C04E9749452273184C6C137CB88CF9@exch-mbx-113.vmware.com> <66CE997FB523C04E9749452273184C6C137CB88D2C@exch-mbx-113.vmware.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201207/27 X-Sequence-Number: 47208 On 07/05/2012 03:52 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Reza Taheri > wrote: > > > I provided more config details in an earlier email.____ > > __ __ > > > > I hate to disagree, but unless I didn't get a message sent to the list, you haven't provided any details about your postgresql config or otherwise adhered to the guidelines for starting a discussion of a performance problem around here. I just searched my mailbox and no email from you has any such details. Several people have asked for them, including myself. You say you will give any details we want, but this is at least the 3rd or 4th request for such details and they have not yet been forthcoming. Reza, I went back and looked myself. I see no specs on OS, or hardware.... unless you mean this: > http://bit.ly/QeWXhE. This was run on a similar server, and the database size is close to ours. You're running on windows then? Server is 96Gig ram, 8 cores, (dell poweredge T610). with two powervault MD1120 NAS's? But then I assume you were not running on that, were you. You were running vmware on it, probably? -Andy