In-Reply-To: <43FC7389.4050408@archonet.com>
References: 
 <544485BC51F81A41AC1A72CFA690136552384E@AZ18EV805.global.ds.honeywell.com>
	<43FC7389.4050408@archonet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C6FB3785-4A09-4D73-85F2-9E3FB5D647DC@mac.com>
Cc: "Chethana, Rao (IE10)" <Chethana.Rao@Honeywell.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Theodore LoScalzo <theodoreloscalzo@mac.com>
Subject: Re: --pls reply ASAP
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:16:30 -0600
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>

I know I am sticking my nose in an area here that I have not been  
involved in but
this issue is important to me.
Chethana I have a couple of questions based on what you said you are  
using as a
platform. see below :

On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:

> Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:
>> Hello!
>> Thank you for responding quickly.  I really need ur help.
>
> Please make sure you cc: the list - I don't read this inbox regularly.
>
>> Sir, here r the answers for ur questions, please do tell me what  
>> to do
>> next(regarding increasing performance of postgresql),  so that I can
>> proceed  further.
>> How are you using PostgreSQL?
>> We r using 7.4.3 with max of (512*6) around 3000 records.
>
> Max of what are (512*6)? Rows? Tables? Sorry - I don't understand  
> what you mean here.
>
> Oh, and upgrade to the latest release of 7.4.x - there are  
> important bugfixes.
>
>> How many concurrent users?
>> It configures for 100, but we r using 4 or 5 only.
>> Mostly updates or small selects or large summary reports?
>> Update,delete,insert operations.
>> What hardware do you have?
>> X86 based, 233 MHz, 256 MB RAM.
What Operating System are you running this on??
How much "other" stuff or applications are you running on the box
Is this a IDE hard drive system?? SCSI?? Bus Speed?? is it a older  
server or a pc??
You dont have a large database at all but quick access to the data  
that is residing in
the database has a lot to do with how the hardware is configured and  
what other programs
are using the limited system resources!
>
> Hmm - not blazing fast, but it'll certainly run on that.
>
>> What configuration changes have you made?
>> No changes, we've used default settings.
>
> That will need changing. As Gourish suggested in another reply,  
> read the notes here:
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
>
> You'll want to be careful with the memory settings given that  
> you've only got 256MB to play with. Don't allocate too much to  
> PostgreSQL itself, let the o.s. cache some files for you.
>
>> Are you having problems with all queries or only some?
>> Only some queries, particularly foreign key.
>
> Are you happy that there are indexes on the referring side of the  
> foreign key where necessary? The primary keys you reference will  
> have indexes on them, the other side will not unless you add them  
> yourself.
>
>> Have you checked the plans for these with EXPLAIN ANALYSE?
>> No.
>
> That would be something worth doing then. Find a bad query, run  
> EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT ... and post a new question with the output  
> and details of the tables involved.
>
>> Have you made sure your tables are vacuumed and analysed?
>> Yes.
>
> Good. With the limited amount of RAM you have, you'll want to use  
> it as efficiently as possible.
>
> -- 
>   Richard Huxton
>   Archonet Ltd
Theodore LoScalzo

>
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq