From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Kiger <kris(at)musicrebellion(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: tsearch2 poor performance |
Date: | 2004-09-27 18:46:43 |
Message-ID: | 41586013.8050509@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Kris Kiger wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I am running my tests on a dual processor PIII 1 GHz machine with 2Gb
> of RAM. There are four hard drives set up. One for OS/logging and
> three in a raid-5 configuration for the postgres data directory.
>
What about other factors?
effective_cache_size
random_page_cost
sort_mem
FYI that example I gave was on a Dual P4-Xeon with 4 Gigs of ram and a
RAID5 over 6 drives.
Just curious.
J
> Kris
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I might of missed this on a previous message, BUT what type of
>> hardware are we dealing with here? Is it possible that we just don't
>> have enough IO/RAM to push this?
>> J
>> Kris Kiger wrote:
>>
>>> Oleg,
>>> Thanks for the help on this.
>>> The query I used to return the 508 number is:
>>> SELECT * FROM stat('SELECT vector FROM product') ORDER BY
>>> ndoc desc, word ;
>>> Testing says, the more words I use, the faster the query is. My
>>> original search word, 'oil', appears in 226,357 documents 233,266
>>> times. As far as distinct words go, 'oil' is middle of the road for
>>> occurences. As it is set up now, the best search time I am getting
>>> on this single word is roughly 22 seconds. Kris
>>>
>>> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kris,
>>>>
>>>> do you actually have only 508 disctinct words ? Could you try
>>>> more complex queries, say 2-3 words. Does these queries run faster ?
>>>> Oleg
>>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Kris Kiger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of caching, the queries are still taking 19~20 seconds
>>>>> to run
>>>>> on the 3,000,000 rows. I've played with performance tuning and
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> seems to make much of a difference. If I am reading that list from
>>>>> stat
>>>>> correctly, then I am operating on 508 distinct words. Is this the
>>>>> performance I should expect from tsearch2? Or is something still
>>>>> awry?
>>>>> I'm inclined to think something else is wrong, after reading some
>>>>> other people's tsearch performance stats. Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Kris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Oleg
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
jd.vcf | text/x-vcard | 640 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Kiger | 2004-09-27 18:56:36 | Re: tsearch2 poor performance |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-09-27 18:45:32 | Re: tsearch2 poor performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Kiger | 2004-09-27 18:56:36 | Re: tsearch2 poor performance |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-09-27 18:45:32 | Re: tsearch2 poor performance |