Re: [GENERAL] lots of large objects and toast
At 01:36 PM 26-05-2000 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Does this also mean that if you are using large objects that you really >> won't be able to store large numbers of large objects in a database? >> (If I am correct, each large object creates two files, one for the large >> object and one for it's index.) > >Yup. Wow! For my webmail app that would be really bad- fortunately I went the filesystem way for storing the actual emails and database storing the path. In theory if BLOBS were handled better then storing them in the database would be quite nice, but right now the BLOBS don't seem to be helpful. >There's never been much enthusiasm among the core developers for large >objects at all --- we see them as a poor substitute for allowing large >values directly. (The "TOAST" work scheduled for 7.1 will finally >resolve that issue, I hope.) So no one's felt like working on improving >the large-object implementation. On the practical side, say I want to insert/read a large amount of information into/from a TOAST field. How should I do it? Is there a pipe method where I can continuously print to/read from? My worry is that if it's just like a standard insert/select command, it will take up a lot of memory to insert/select big stuff. So if lots of people are inserting/reading 1MB email attachments at the same time it'll get nasty. For other apps with really big stuff it could become really unmanageable. Cheerio, Link.
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > This has "fire" written all over it > > > > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise > > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster > > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that > > Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > > in platform support compared to mysql. > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes. Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- "The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as we could with both of them." -- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > This has "fire" written all over it > > > > > > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise > > > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster > > > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that > > > Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > > > in platform support compared to mysql. > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes. That was my understanding too ... which is why I'm really curious as to which one MySQL runs on that we don't ...
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > in platform support compared to mysql. > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? mySQL even does OS/2. Really. -Ronabop
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
At 10:28 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Brett W. McCoy wrote: >On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > >> >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in >> >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. >> >> Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient >> but not effective and vice versa. > >Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P Now, now, be nice :). MySQL is pretty good at most of the things it does and attempts to do. And I really like the GET LOCK feature/function, is it possible to add something like that to Postgresql? And it's fast :). It seems that with fsync off Postgresql can be just as fast with updates, but I'm still reluctant to do that as data recovery methods don't seem as developed on Postgresql - arguably you could say because there's less need of them compared to other databases ;). But that may only be true if fsync is _on_. (I get the impression that you can specify fsync on a per connection basis with v7.0, that'll be real cool - will be tempted to start up two connections per app). How fast comparatively are inserts for Postgresql? Cheerio, Link.
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > site with a huger budget). Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy -Bop
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run Win9x. Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x. However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. -- "The Rockford Files"
Re: [GENERAL] lots of large objects and toast
Lincoln Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There's never been much enthusiasm among the core developers for large >> objects at all --- we see them as a poor substitute for allowing large >> values directly. (The "TOAST" work scheduled for 7.1 will finally >> resolve that issue, I hope.) So no one's felt like working on improving >> the large-object implementation. > On the practical side, say I want to insert/read a large amount of > information into/from a TOAST field. How should I do it? > Is there a pipe method where I can continuously print to/read from? Not at the moment, but that's obviously going to be a necessary feature if we want to make the existing flavor of large objects obsolete. There have been some preliminary discussions about it --- AFAIR no one's laid out a complete proposal yet. regards, tom lane
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > limited > > in platform support compared to mysql. And: > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > Brett W. McCoy Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it comparable in cost to get support for that platform? :-) -Ron -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? > 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on > your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions > that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much > happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the > Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run > Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run > Win9x. > > Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x. CygWin does run on Windows 9x, doesn't it? Or at least it used to! Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. -- "The Rockford Files"
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > Brett W. McCoy > > Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it > comparable in cost to get support for that platform? Can PostgreSQL run on Win9x with CygWin32? Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. -- "The Rockford Files"
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
Lamar Owen wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? > 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on > your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions > that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much > happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the > Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run > Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run > Win9x. Hm. See my .sig (missing from prior posts) yes, it's nice that a hardware platform can be bent to work with certain applications. I do lots of bending. However, most users prefer to get applications for their platform, not the other way round. Not all of us are platform agnostic. ;-) > However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't. Yet? -Ronabop -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
Re: [GENERAL] lots of large objects and toast
At 11:22 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Lincoln Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Is there a pipe method where I can continuously print to/read from? > >Not at the moment, but that's obviously going to be a necessary feature >if we want to make the existing flavor of large objects obsolete. There >have been some preliminary discussions about it --- AFAIR no one's laid >out a complete proposal yet. Will such a "TOAST" and pg_dump interoperate? That would be nice to have. But if that's not possible then maybe new dump and load tools will be needed which cover everything. If not there'll be a new line on the FAQ - I dumped XXX and reloaded but it's not there. How do the other databases do BLOBS? Which ones do it well :). Have a nice day! Link.
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ...
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > > site with a huger budget). > > Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. > > http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy And, sadly, totally inaccurate *sigh* We've been working with them since the beginning of time to get them to fix their various benchmarks for accuracy ... we just recently had a long thread on it where one of the guys workign witht the MySQL camp was going to push for changes ... but even then, i believe taht there will be a helluva-lot of discrepencies :(
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Tue, 30 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ... Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on Win9x: "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..." The documentation references using MVC++. Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. -- "The Rockford Files"
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > > Brett W. McCoy > > > > Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it > > comparable in cost to get support for that platform? > > Can PostgreSQL run on Win9x with CygWin32? I have heard we can't because CywWin doesn't support all features on that platform. -- Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ... > Wasn't that a libpq client? -- Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
> Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on > Win9x: > > "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll > library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 > directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..." > > The documentation references using MVC++. We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. -- Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll > > library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 > > directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..." > > > > The documentation references using MVC++. > > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. My mistake. Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --- For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill. -- R. Clopton
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in the backend. Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO. If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're welcome to it. regards, tom lane
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql usage clip.
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. > > I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's > a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in > the backend. > > Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a > platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database > engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO. > If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're > welcome to it. We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both, but the Win95/98 has missing features that we need. People have asked about it, and they have said they were going to try Win95/98 and report back on the problems they had, but no one has. I assume they got lots of "unimplemented" messages from Cygwin and gave up. -- Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
[GENERAL] New behavior in 7.0
Hello, I've worked with 6.5.3 and few other older versions. I've never had this happen before. Can some one give some explaination? Script started on Tue May 30 01:11:29 2000 bash-2.03$ psql -d sprawlsr -c "vacuum" NOTICE: Skipping "pg_type" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_attribute" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_proc" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_class" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_indexes" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_group" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_database" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_attrdef" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_relcheck" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_trigger" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_inherits" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_index" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_statistic" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_operator" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_opclass" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_am" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_amop" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_amproc" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_language" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_aggregate" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_ipl" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_inheritproc" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_rewrite" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_listener" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_description" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_shadow" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_user" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_rules" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_views" --- only table owner can VACUUM it NOTICE: Skipping "pg_tables" --- only table owner can VACUUM it VACUUM bash-2.03$ exit exit Script done on Tue May 30 01:11:47 2000 Thanks, Robert
