I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
scale on the web, you shou
On 10/20/07, Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
> rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
> Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
>
> Interestingly, it appears that the CUBE
On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, the problem are the no. of semaphores created by Postgres:
> Every backend creates at least 4* semaphores. Just
> increase to an unusual high value (say 1) and
> start creating new connections while monitoring the handle count.
H
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand correctly, the user "pgsql", besides having its own file
system not related to others, is the administrator of the postgresql db
administrator. Only "pgsql" can modify the db, but the other users can
query the db but not modify it. Am I rigth? What I sho
On Oct 20, 2007, at 21:24 , Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
I've seen ltree mentioned from time to time. Is it true that it
works with adjacency list model?
I don't believe so. I think it's path-based, but you can check it out
for yourself in contrib/
If the nested set model is chosen, would
--- On Sat, 10/20/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you eliminated other approaches, such as arrays, ltree, etc?
Actually I haven't considered using arrays to store hierarchal information.
I've seen ltree mentioned from time to time. Is it true that it works with
adjacency lis
Hi all,
Im trying to use table inheritance in my database. I need it because i want
to be able to link any object in the database to another. So i created a
table my_object which has a serial, nothing more. All the other tables in
the system are inherited from this my_object table. Im having diffi
Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
Interestingly, it appears that the CUBE index for the table in
question is about 3GB (the table
Jerry Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello;
>
> To begin with, I'm not certain how useful it would be... that said; it
> seems odd that a role or DB can have it's config search_path set to
> empty string but you can't explicitly set it that way.
Ugh!
Sorry. I forgot to see if set_conf
Hello;
To begin with, I'm not certain how useful it would be... that said; it
seems odd that a role or DB can have it's config search_path set to
empty string but you can't explicitly set it that way.
One possible use for this might be to force complete schema
qualification when developing DB
Hello Trevor,
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 12:15:25 AM, you wrote:
TT> On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I could reproduce this here:
>>
>> Server closed the connection unexpectedly
>> This probaly means the server terminated abnormally before or while
>> processing
>> the re
I wrote
> Anyway, the problem are the no. of semaphores created by Postgres:
> Every backend creates at least 4* semaphores.
Sorry, this must read semaphores, not 4 times.
Rainer
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner
--- Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could reproduce this here:
>
> Server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probaly means the server terminated abnormally before or while
> processing
> the request
>
> 2007-10-20 23:33:42 LOG: server process (PID 5240) exited with exit
> cod
On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could reproduce this here:
>
> Server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probaly means the server terminated abnormally before or while processing
> the request
>
> 2007-10-20 23:33:42 LOG: server process (PID 5240) exited with exit
Shelby Cain wrote:
>--- Trevor Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/07, Shelby Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd personally vote for a lower warning limit like 175 as I can
>> > consistently crash Postgresql on Windows system right around the
>> 200th
>> > connection.
>>
>>
On 10/20/07, Shelby Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Trevor Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 10/20/07, Shelby Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd personally vote for a lower warning limit like 175 as I can
> > > consistently crash Postgresql on Windows system right around
I wrote:
>You are right. I just did a quick test and depending on the handle type these
>limits are quite high. I could create 5 millions events or 4 millions
>semaphores or 3,5 millions mutexes before the system returned error 1816
>ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_QUOTA "Not enough quota is available to process
--- Trevor Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/20/07, Shelby Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd personally vote for a lower warning limit like 175 as I can
> > consistently crash Postgresql on Windows system right around the
> 200th
> > connection.
>
> What error gets logged for yo
"Trevor Talbot" wrote:
>On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Magnus Hagander" wrote:
>>
>> >> - Max_connections is set to 500. I did that originally because I kept
>> >> seeing a message about no connection available and I thought it was
>> >> because I was not allocating enoug
"Kynn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In short, my question is: is there a way to designate a pre-existing
> UNIQUE INDEX (based on data contained in NOT NULL fields) as the basis
> for a table's PRIMARY KEY?
No. If there were, that client software you mention would very likely
still get con
This is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier.
On 10/19/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you need is:
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_uniq_x_y on foo (canonicalize(x,y));
>
> > LOCATION: base_yyerror, scan.l:795
OK, now, what if instead of this
-> ALTER TABLE foo ADD CONSTRAI
On 10/20/07, Shelby Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd personally vote for a lower warning limit like 175 as I can
> consistently crash Postgresql on Windows system right around the 200th
> connection.
What error gets logged for your crashes?
---(end of broadcast)-
On Friday 19 October 2007 3:03 pm, Valerie Cole wrote:
> Hello
>
>
>
> I have a problem and am pretty sure Hibernate is the culprit but was
> wondering if anybody knew of a fix. We are working on legacy code and
> converted a class from Hibernate 2 xml mappings to Hibernate 3 with
> annotations.
--- "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about we just emit a warning..
>
> WARNING: Connections above 250 on Windows platforms may have
> unpredictable results.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
I'd personally vote for a lower warning limit like 175 as I can
consistently crash Postgresql
On 10/19/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kynn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION canonicalize( anyelement, anyelement )
> > RETURNS anyarray AS
> > $$
> > BEGIN
> > IF $1 < $2 THEN RETURN ARRAY[ $1, $2 ];
> > ELSERETURN ARRAY[ $2, $
On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" wrote:
>
> >> - Max_connections is set to 500. I did that originally because I kept
> >> seeing a message about no connection available and I thought it was
> >> because I was not allocating enough connections. My machine has
On 10/17/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:40:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Maybe we should put an #ifdef WIN32 into guc.c to limit max_connections
> > to something we know the platform can stand? It'd be more comfortable
> > if we understood exactly wh
On Oct 20, 2007, at 7:33 , Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/19/07, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it possible to constraint both the LEFT and RIGHT fields of a
record to use the same index? I am looking for a way to ensure
for all LEFTs and RIGHTs in a table, that is it is im
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How about we just emit a warning..
>>>
>>> WARNING: Connections above 250 on Windows platforms may have
>>> unpredictable results.
>
>> That's probably a better idea. I'll go look at that unless people feel we
>> should just sti
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How about we just emit a warning..
>>
>> WARNING: Connections above 250 on Windows platforms may have
>> unpredictable results.
> That's probably a better idea. I'll go look at that unless people feel we
> should just stick it in docd/faq?
Unles
On 10/19/07, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to constraint both the LEFT and RIGHT fields of a record to
> use the same index? I am looking for a way to ensure for all LEFTs and
> RIGHTs in a table, that is it is impossible for any LEFT or RIGHT to have to
> same
> > > Maybe we should put an #ifdef WIN32 into guc.c to limit
> > > max_connections to something we know the platform can stand? It'd
> > > be more comfortable if we understood exactly where the limit was,
> > > but I think I'd rather have an "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"
> > > than random-see
"Magnus Hagander" wrote:
>> - Max_connections is set to 500. I did that originally because I kept
>> seeing a message about no connection available and I thought it was
>> because I was not allocating enough connections. My machine has 2GB of RAM.
>
>There's your problem. 500 is way above what the
33 matches
Mail list logo
