PokerTracker Performance and SQL

[Jonathan]

Hi,

My PokerTracker performance has become so slow
that I'm on the point of giving up PT entirely.
(I'm currently using the Access database).
I sent the following note to Pat on the PokerTracker
board and I'm awaiting his reply and suggestions.

But I wanted to post it here too, to get feedback from
others who might have had similar problems and how they
went about solving them. I'm sure that there are tons
of players out there whose databases are much larger than
mine.

In particular, did converting your database to PostgreSQL solve your performance problems?

Thanks for any input and advice.

Jonathan
__________________________________________________ _______
Hi,

I've been a PT user and supporter for several years now. But
lately my performance has degenerated to the point where I just
can't use the program.

For example, when I open the program, and go to view tournament
statistics, it can take up to 3 or 4 minutes to retrieve the list of
tournament players. I have the same problem whenever I change
any of the filter options. While PT reads the list of tournament
players, the cpu utilization jumps to 100% and all other functions
on the machine come to a standstill. Its become very very
frustrating to use the program at all!

My database file is 51MB, which doesn't seem all that big. My PokerStars
tournament database has 144,129 hands and 68,864 players.

My machine is a Dell Inspiron 8200, with 2.2 Ghz pentium, 512MB
memory, and Windows XP Home.

What can I do? If I switch to the SQL database will that help the
performance problem? What about buying a new computer? I've
looked into buying a new machine, but put it off when I saw that
the current crop doesn't seem to be all that much better than
what I've got.

Please advise!

Thanks,
Jonathan

[lwlee]

I totally sympathize with you. I have a Dell 8250. I've already upgraded to Postgres. My database size is about the same as yours. I have about 150 new files to import. When I run the damn program. it will more or less lock up the machine for more than 12 hours. I had to use the machine so I force rebooted.

The software wasn't built well if it constantly locks up the machine. I can understand if it's CPU intensive but better written software will run in the background and give you a visual progress report. I don't know what's it trying to do but the data size doesn't seem to warrant so much CPU usage.

[Jonathan]

I had your problem once, but the way I solved it with
Pat's advice, is to make sure you import all your hands
while you are actually playing rather than let them
bunch up. And also make sure that after you import the
hands, you move th history file to another folder. That way,
Poker Tracker is only trying to import hands from the
tables that you are currently playing at and it is much
more manageable. I found this to be quite workable.
But my other problems occur every time I try to access
the tournament database.

I was hoping to hear from others who have switched to
PostGRESQL and how they like it.

Suerte,
Jonathan

[Terry]

For me, moving to PostgreSQL made a noticable difference but not a dramatic one.

Going from from 512MB to 1GB of RAM had a bigger effect.

[Jonathan]

Thanks,

I'm installing PostGresql this evening. Will upgrade
my memory to 1 Gb ASAP

[beaster]

I'm running the PostgreSQL database off of my linux machine and I can tell you that as I acquire more hands it takes longer and longer to open. Response time suffers when switching tabs as well. One of these days I think I might convert back* to access to see if PostgreSQL really is better.

*NOTE: Converting back to an Access DB requires exporting all hands and then re-importing them.

I posted about these response issues on the PT board but wasn't met with many answers. I suppose running the DB remotely (on my linux fileserver) could explain the slow response, but I'm not sure.

[Jonathan]

Interesting....

Last night I started the conversion process. I have
5 databases, and last night I converted the first, and
smallest..MyFirstPokertrackerDatabase. Even though
this particular databse is small, it took about 2 and half
hours to convert. I'm going to go through one a night
until its complete.

Mabey, I'll try getting a new machine and see if that helps.

Jonathan

[SAV]

I made the switch to PostgreSQL a few days ago
and found no improvement at all.

The performance is the same as with the access
database.

[lwlee]

Yep, like I said it's poor programming. I wonder if the author is doing something as silly as N+1 search lookup somewhere.

[boondoggle]

I like Pat and what he has done but his SQL programming leaves a lot to be desired. For example, it takes days to delete a database. I am not making this up. I tried deleting a database and by hour 26, I aborted the process. His sql code/database setup is atrocious and someone should help him out.

I would but I do not think he is open minded for help.

cheers
Boon