Hello list,
I am happy to report that I am seeing a 150% average increase in select
performance since I
upgraded to 8.1.4.
Version
PostgreSQL 8.1.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu,
compiled by GCC i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 3.4.6
(Gentoo 3.4.6-r1, ssp-3.4.5-1.0, pie-8.7.9)
Not to mention, the u
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* last_anl_tuples must never exceed n_live_tuples */
If we actually believe the above statement, it seems like your patch
to pgstat_recv_tabstat() opens a new issue: with that patch, it is
possible for pgstat_recv_tabstat() to decrease n_
Hello,
I need some help to understand better the way PostgreSQL works internally:
Oracle 8.1.7 used to have a severe lock contention when FKs had no index
(causing an sx table lock). AFAIK this was "fixed" on 9i with the addition
of "shared row locking".
Reading the docs I found that PostgreSQL
Dylan Hansen wrote:
> So can I assume that this is a bug?
Definitively a bug.
> The only resolution I can see right now is to setup a cron job that
> will perform an ANALYZE periodically, as the pg_autovacuum ANALYZE
> threshold is never reached.
>
> Any other suggestions? Thanks for the in
Inheritance in postgre means you will have same fields definition
like the inherited table plus its own fields. So if table B is inherit
table A,
table B will have same field definition like A plus table B own
unique field(s).
It wont share primary keys, table B just have primary key in th
nik600 wrote:
hi
i don't have understand how works inheritance of tables...
if table B inherits from table A
- A and B must share primary keys?
- if i isert record in B the record is replaced in A ?
can i avoid this?
i would like to have this scenario:
table A
table B inheridts from A
tab
Compaq RAID controllers are known to be slow under linux.Alex.On 6/26/06, Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Scott Marlowe wrote:> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:59, Tony Caduto wrote:
>>> MG wrote:> Hello,>> we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.>> When we do a
Hi all,
Thanks for the continued suggestions on this question. I will reply
again once it is implemented and working.
Kind regards
John
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Scott Ribe wrote:
You won't have duplicates[1], it's a sequence. It's its purpose.
Now I may have missed something, I didn't follow
Rhys Stewart wrote:
Hi all,
can i search in a list or regular expressioneg
"select yadi from ya where yadiya in ('old', 'ulk', 'orb')"
but instead of in ther'd be another operator or a LIKE IN.
so it'd be a shorcut for typing yadiya ~* 'old' or yadiya ~* 'ulk' etc.
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 12:10, Guy Fraser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-26-06 at 11:08 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:59, Tony Caduto wro
> >
> > I have to say this has NOT been my experience. With a pair of U320
> > drives on an LSI-Megaraid with battery backed cache (256M or 512
> i don't have understand how works inheritance of tables...
> if table B inherits from table A
> - A and B must share primary keys?
No, currently there is no unique constraint that will force uniqueness across
parent/child/sibling
tables. Just think of them as being nothing more than seperate
"pajai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have got an issue with PostgreSQL. There is a limitation on the
> column length of a tuple, in case there is an index over it. In the
> actual project I am working on, I meet such a situation. I have got an
> attribute over which I am doing a search (that is,
"Rhys Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> can i search in a list or regular expressioneg
> "select yadi from ya where yadiya in ('old', 'ulk', 'orb')"
> but instead of in ther'd be another operator or a LIKE IN.
You could use " ANY" --- "IN" is just a shorthand for "= ANY".
I don't think
Hi all,
can i search in a list or regular expressioneg
"select yadi from ya where yadiya in ('old', 'ulk', 'orb')"
but instead of in ther'd be another operator or a LIKE IN.
so it'd be a shorcut for typing yadiya ~* 'old' or yadiya ~* 'ulk' etc.
---(end of broadcast)
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:52:56AM -0700, pajai wrote:
> I have thought of a possible workaround. I would like to know if it
> seems reasonable. The idea would be to build a hash, on the client
> side, over the problematic column (let's say column a). I then store in
> the db the attribute a (witho
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:59, Tony Caduto wrote:
MG wrote:
Hello,
we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very
very slowly or stands.
The maschine has 3 GB RAM, so we suppos
On Mon, 2006-26-06 at 11:08 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:59, Tony Caduto wrote:
> > MG wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
> > >
> > > When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very
> >
So can I assume that this is a bug?The only resolution I can see right now is to setup a cron job that will perform an ANALYZE periodically, as the pg_autovacuum ANALYZE threshold is never reached.Any other suggestions? Thanks for the input! --Dylan HansenEnterprise Systems DeveloperOn 24-Jun-06,
hi
i don't have understand how works inheritance of tables...
if table B inherits from table A
- A and B must share primary keys?
- if i isert record in B the record is replaced in A ?
can i avoid this?
i would like to have this scenario:
table A
table B inheridts from A
table C inheridts
Hi everybody,
I have got an issue with PostgreSQL. There is a limitation on the
column length of a tuple, in case there is an index over it. In the
actual project I am working on, I meet such a situation. I have got an
attribute over which I am doing a search (that is, I need an index over
it), bu
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:59, Tony Caduto wrote:
> MG wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
> >
> > When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very
> > very slowly or stands.
> > The maschine has 3 GB RAM, so we suppose it
Thanx Scott and Michael
-Original Message-
From: Michael Fuhr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:18 PM
To: Nitin Verma
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] initlocation on 8.0+
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:31:22AM -0700, Nitin Verma wrote:
> I am usi
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:31:22AM -0700, Nitin Verma wrote:
> I am using initlocation utility to have two separate PGDATAs, that can then
> host different databases. In my case I only have one on each and I am using
> version 7.3.2.
>
> But I am not able to find this utility on 8.1.0, is there an
Scott Ribe wrote:
You won't have duplicates[1], it's a sequence. It's its purpose.
Now I may have missed something, I didn't follow this thread.
Yes, what you quoted was more the intro. The actual question was how to find
out what ids were generated during a sequence of insertions.
That's w
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:31, Nitin Verma wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am using initlocation utility to have two separate PGDATAs, that can then
> host different databases. In my case I only have one on each and I am using
> version 7.3.2.
>
> But I am not able to find this utility on 8.1.0, is there an
> You won't have duplicates[1], it's a sequence. It's its purpose.
>
> Now I may have missed something, I didn't follow this thread.
Yes, what you quoted was more the intro. The actual question was how to find
out what ids were generated during a sequence of insertions.
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PRO
Hi All,
I am using initlocation utility to have two separate PGDATAs, that can then
host different databases. In my case I only have one on each and I am using
version 7.3.2.
But I am not able to find this utility on 8.1.0, is there an alternative
utility to this or this feature is no more suppor
On Monday 26 June 2006 00:36, MG wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
I'm sorry.
>
> When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very very
> slowly or stands. The maschine has 3 GB RAM, so we suppose it`s the RAID.
Or your databa
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:00:19PM +0200, lrotger wrote:
I run the following query:
update personal set closed_date = flt_date + 20
from enr inner join personal p on enr.id = p.id_enr
where (...columns from enr, columns from personal...)
I think your problem is
Tom Lane wrote:
"Francesco Formenti - TVBLOB S.r.l." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
we are developing a system for profile management. The simplified schema
is composed by three tables:
* tbl_user : the users table; contains the unique id of the users
and the profile id (only
MG wrote:
Hello,
we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very
very slowly or stands.
The maschine has 3 GB RAM, so we suppose it`s the RAID.
Has anyone some experience with RAID + PostgreSQL?
Where d
"Francesco Formenti - TVBLOB S.r.l." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> we are developing a system for profile management. The simplified schema
> is composed by three tables:
> * tbl_user : the users table; contains the unique id of the users
> and the profile id (only one profile for each
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:31:32AM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> [1] Unless you manage to make it wrap around after 2^32 (or 2^64?) calls
> of nextval. But that's quite unlikely.
Even then, only if have wrapping enabled. With wrapping disabled,
nextval() will simply fail rather than return a val
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:00:19PM +0200, lrotger wrote:
> I run the following query:
>
> update personal set closed_date = flt_date + 20
> from enr inner join personal p on enr.id = p.id_enr
> where (...columns from enr, columns from personal...)
I think your problem is that "personal" and "pers
John Tregea wrote:
The example of
select id1 = nextval(somesequence)
could work for me. I have multiple users with our GUI and imagine I
could use transaction protection to ensure no duplicates between
selecting and incrementing the somesequence...
You won't have duplicates[1], it's a seque
Hello,
I have a table 'customers', with 2 records:
SELECT * FROM customers;
customerID | customerName
--+-
myFriend | myFriend's Name
test | testing user
(2 rows)
but when I'm asking about customerID column, I get the answer:
SELECT custo
Hi all,
we are developing a system for profile management. The simplified schema
is composed by three tables:
* tbl_user : the users table; contains the unique id of the users
and the profile id (only one profile for each user), and some
other information
* tbl_data_type : conta
Hello,
we are using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 together with RAID on OpenServer 6.
When we do a big SELECT-query the whole maschine becomes very very
very slowly or stands.
The maschine has 3 GB RAM, so we suppose it`s the RAID.
Has anyone some experience with RAID + PostgreSQL?
Where does Postgr
I apologize if I'm running an old version (7.2.1) maybe this has been
fixed or maybe it's not a bug but I can't look at the changelogs now.
UPDATE has a non-standard FROM clause where you can do joins etc so
columns from other tables can appear in WHERE.
I run the following query:
update per
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hello,
I have a table 'customers', with 2 records:
SELECT * FROM customers;
customerID | customerName
--+-
myFriend | myFriend's Name
test | testing user
(2 rows)
but when I'm asking about customerID column, I
40 matches
Mail list logo
