Re: URGENT: Performance tuning

Mr. Sandman wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>>--0-1863467882-1024751590=:63919
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Hi,
>>Curt, you are rigth. I tested it.
>>My idea was only to compare postgres with oracle and to
see if it is good.

I tested both, postgresql is far good (I mean better in my
opinion)

>>I got the simplest example with simple data inserting.
>>I do not have any answer on my questin:

>>Is postgres good as performace compared to oracle and if
yes how to fine tune it.

tuning in postgres is done a bit at the daemon side
(starting options) and a lot at the hardware side
(the bottleneck is often the hardisks)
As postgres is free (as beer) you have more money to get
some better material (more ram, raid crontroller/ scsi
disks) etc....
(better reliability or general performance)

this is how I do:
- First of all, I look at my query (bad sql queries are slow).
- I use transactions to do many insertions (each transaction
inserting about 1000 to 3000 records)

- I optimized the postgresql.conf:

the main optimization is the fsync which requieres an UPS
plugged to the server to prevent dataloss in case of power down

I read this too:
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/

>I readet all docs that Ifound, changed shared buffers and
sort chache but can not
>>get good result.
try the fsync

>>And the second question:
>>Was enyone from the list a good perofmed postgres and if
yes can I receiv this test result.
>>If no one had good tuned postgres I do not see the need
to use it. For me it can be only "play", demo or...?

The most of our queries don't exceed 0.6s to perform (on
tables of 100,000 to 200,000 records on a middle size server
(bi-800MHz-scsiHardRAID5: (1723.59 BogoMIPS) ).
We tested postgres on tables of more than 10,000,000 records
to make our mind... quickly :]