From: Lefteris <lsidir@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Air-traffic benchmark
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:05:33 +0100
Message-ID: <852badbc1001070705w45ed93d6m385ea50da2221959@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <hi4sde$k7p$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <852badbc1001070438j36eb10d3qa22398ffcbef405f@mail.gmail.com>
<4B45E36E.4040706@tweakers.net>
<852badbc1001070547p48b47175vf87efc473e3bd41b@mail.gmail.com>
<26014999.20100107150535@erwied.eu>
<852badbc1001070610p698dc3cfr4628b1e7768990e6@mail.gmail.com>
<20100107141423.GC4315@alvh.no-ip.org>
<852badbc1001070623m5d901c42k50bb808409141ca4@mail.gmail.com>
<hi4sde$k7p$1@ger.gmane.org>
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 7.1.2010 15:23, Lefteris wrote:
>
>> I think what you all said was very helpful and clear! The only part
>> that I still disagree/don't understand is the shared_buffer option:))
>
> Did you ever try increasing shared_buffers to what was suggested (around
> 4 GB) and see what happens (I didn't see it in your posts)?
No I did not to that yet, mainly because I need the admin of the
machine to change the shmmax of the kernel and also because I have no
multiple queries running. Does Seq scan uses shared_buffers?
>
> Shared_buffers can be thought as the PostgreSQLs internal cache. If the
> pages being scanned for a particular query are in the cache, this will
> help performance very much on multiple exequtions of the same query.
> OTOH, since the file system's cache didn't help you significantly, there
> is low possibility shared_buffers will. It is still worth trying.
>
> From the description of the data ("...from years 1988 to 2009...") it
> looks like the query for "between 2000 and 2009" pulls out about half of
> the data. If an index could be used instead of seqscan, it could be
> perhaps only 50% faster, which is still not very comparable to others.
>
> The table is very wide, which is probably why the tested databases can
> deal with it faster than PG. You could try and narrow the table down
> (for instance: remove the Div* fields) to make the data more
> "relational-like". In real life, speedups in this circumstances would
> probably be gained by normalizing the data to make the basic table
> smaller and easier to use with indexing.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: lsidir@gmail.com, ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Air-traffic benchmark
In-Reply-To: <852badbc1001070705w45ed93d6m385ea50da2221959@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox