From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Patvs <patvs(at)chello(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |
Date: | 2009-07-06 09:40:19 |
Message-ID: | 407d949e0907060240n569e2aa5u2ed0586a3d461e57@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Patvs<patvs(at)chello(dot)nl> wrote:
> -4 One a scale from 1 to 10, how significant are the following on
> performance increase:
> -[ ] Getting a faster harddisk (RAID or a SSD)
> -[ ] Getting a faster CPU
> -[ ] Upgrading PostgreSQL (8.2 and 8.3) to 8.4
> -[ ] Tweaking PostgreSQL (increasing # shared_buffers, wal_buffers,
> effective_cache_size, etc.)
> -[10!] Something else?
It sounds like you have specific performance problems you're trying to
address. Given the use case it seems surprising that you're looking at
such heavy-duty hardware. It seems more likely that
PokerTracker/Holdem Manager is missing some indexes in its schema or
that some queries could be tweaked to run more efficiently.
Perhaps if you set log_statement_duration and send any slow queries
here we would find a problem that could be fixed.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-07-06 10:23:10 | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |
Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-07-06 08:47:08 | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |