Re: performance sol10 zone (fup)

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Heiko L(dot)" <heikol(at)fh-lausitz(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance sol10 zone (fup)
Date: 2010-08-12 04:12:08
Message-ID: AANLkTik7W3qcttmDwrgujXsn9eraVoMGL2ADXHB994X2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Heiko L. <heikol(at)fh-lausitz(dot)de> wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> Im running pg-8,pgpoolII on sol10-zone.

I noticed late you mention 8.3.1. Two points, you're missing > 1 year
of updates, bug fixes, security patches etc. Assuming this version
was fast before, we'll assume it's not the cause of this problem,
however, you're asking for trouble with a version that old. There are
bugs that might not bite you today, but may well in the future.
Please upgrade to 8.3.11.

> After update sol10u7, queries on coltype timestamp are very slow.
> System: sparc, 2GB RAM

Is it possible you had an index that was working that now isn't? Are
the queries you included the real ones or approximations?

It looks like you have a bunch of seq scans happening. If they're all
happening on the same table or small set of them, then a lot of
queries should be able to access them in any order together in 8.3

Are sequential scans normal for this query when it runs fast?

What does vmstat 10 and / or iostat -xd 10 have to say while this is running?

--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-08-12 04:30:47 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-08-12 03:16:54 Re: performance sol10 zone (fup)