From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 13:40:00 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BDCDBA0 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3cd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "ca.infracaninophile.co.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 228512BE6 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ox-dell39.ox.adestra.com (no-reverse-dns.metronet-uk.com [85.199.232.226] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s6NDdqAe048501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:39:52 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Authentication-Results: lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk; dmarc=none header.from=infracaninophile.co.uk DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk s6NDdqAe048501 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infracaninophile.co.uk; s=201001-infracaninophile; t=1406122792; bh=g6sjNwHjk8ehywq1kbEbTzVfvKPWQqK4an20DfwAWeI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; z=Date:=20Wed,=2023=20Jul=202014=2014:39:45=20+0100|From:=20Matthew =20Seaman=20|To:=20freebsd-questi ons@freebsd.org|Subject:=20Re:=20freebsd=20+=20postgresql|Referenc es:=20<20140723130211.GQ1848@mordor.lan>|In-Reply-To:=20<201407231 30211.GQ1848@mordor.lan>; b=uL+p+nzB+12VShiNK99sa1u5pSyrtqnzqDdaSFl2+O6pZE2gB4NbEeeun+aP03EN6 FSrFQQnBVl/1kOViiU5dnHtdSceWVVwYU0KMOw1XiV5v4JSTsN+lUtsBj5X66oYxto Oi9Qjkd13hK72hoSDDue7VDZXRNejequcvXgmgIY= X-Authentication-Warning: lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk: Host no-reverse-dns.metronet-uk.com [85.199.232.226] (may be forged) claimed to be ox-dell39.ox.adestra.com Message-ID: <53CFBB21.1090608@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:39:45 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd + postgresql References: <20140723130211.GQ1848@mordor.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140723130211.GQ1848@mordor.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HhuITkmB7idspxosXPAPcGRjVTSqC4KjE" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RDNS_NONE,SPF_FAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:40:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --HhuITkmB7idspxosXPAPcGRjVTSqC4KjE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/23/14 14:02, Julien Cigar wrote: > Any idea if the changes/patches from > https://www.kib.kiev.ua/kib/pgsql_perf_v2.0.pdf will be merged to > 10-STABLE soon? We have a rather old PostgreSQL that we would like to > upgrade soon .. Those precise patches are unlikely to be committed anywhere, as they are proof of concept / exploratory stuff only. However, it's pretty easy to apply them to 10-STABLE or 10.0-RELEASE sources and compile your own custom kernel. Don't believe blindly that these patches will improve performance for you. Test against your own workload to be sure. Best recommendation at the moment is to stick with postgresql-9.2.x -- unless your database is small enough to fit entirely within RAM, in which case you could well find that upgrading to pg 9.3 makes little difference to performance. But, like I said, don't take anyone's word on it: measure your performance and be certain. Cheers, Matthew --HhuITkmB7idspxosXPAPcGRjVTSqC4KjE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJTz7snXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxOUYxNTRFQ0JGMTEyRTUwNTQ0RTNGMzAw MDUxM0YxMEUwQTlFNEU3AAoJEABRPxDgqeTnzQkP/0dXsxaY/rGXeOeSKVHzucqD swMgoFGmvGXOZeFWv9m8ZJ6G0xPORexkXQlrfWyPr2D01klG5x5jR0/emR7fLKaI gIf9ihCFK328jZUUBb/VYHde92ysp1YZZ8bj328vIOtyXcEeodIoIIwBrlVi3vXE 5eMpGKS2zfr+FKs32Gah8iTdVCaIzUAs1qIm9QECE403cLFqZwH5qc8XWHFfCC0m wP5nxw04uYTE9AVUWKM7BT5iDXJfe0wXBCYiYj+pFDTmMRPMHtFBJ3QtZ0Rw8YAj TCY94a1nPPR9Z414OaiL1TnOPvtIU6ZSYWC0dgud5QJDTLaHusIS6hyBzY/RU+W8 fyO1ELu2k3A/fWfnequ2pRpnza5WyJle31ingpHgIPlrnXlNOepdeMAWKQmj8wgI VmrEz3Zq3X58NaME2AcE5Wfe6otBvuL8bc/CNw9Llo+XUAgso1Xjv11tGj2f/ZWc /6X+TUv3E1PV23ZckZgdr1/7GVlJ3HiyCyFw/93cvfdq2PQa1Kltr4PqdT8Qx4dW EDWo7p63mtRRqblyeSEiTyjBBq8qQxsHwKBEW+U+Oit/G2LV80UY6tEFQydk6jeJ Quls4oGDFOGDN9pEebGIsuGu+MXIuBRhpigpVW71j69/EwUgAE8zkpVYjUmXgGSk TVpJtFUw6kUC/mReCV/j =0n3n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HhuITkmB7idspxosXPAPcGRjVTSqC4KjE--