Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 23:16 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 08:41 +0200, Sim Zacks wrote:
Another way of doing this, without dblink, is using an unsecured language
(plpython, for example) is to connect to the sql server using odbc and
Sim Zacks wrote:
We use postgresql because it is open source, we have in-house experience
to deal with it so we don't have any extra support costs and we don't
need the features that are offered in commercial products that
PostGreSQL does not have. We also don't need the speed that commercial
Sir,
I am very new to Pgsql. I have a server serving 200
clients. I want to prepare a failover /mirroring
server which in case the original server fails should
take over automatically. Kindly Guide me.
With Regards,
Rayudu.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:06:45 -0800
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Granted there are scenarios where others are FASTER (SELECT
COUNT(*)) but I find that if you are doing those items, you
normally have a weird design anyway.
Sincerely,
Sincerely, would you make an example of such a
--
Best Regards
Evgeny K. Shepelyuk
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:30 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with
extensibility
On Wed,
Hello.
After looking for a way to transfer PostgreSQL/PostGIS data from windowsXP
to linux (Ubuntu 7.10), I did not find it.
Please, does anyone know an easy way or free tool for it.
Thanks in advance
Best regards
Antonio
Antonio,
After looking for a way to transfer PostgreSQL/PostGIS data from windowsXP
to linux (Ubuntu 7.10), I did not find it.
Please, does anyone know an easy way or free tool for it.
I do this via
pg_dump on the sender
and
pg_restore or psql -f
on the receiver site. Both are included
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:39:34 -0800
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:06:45 -0800
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Granted there are scenarios where others are FASTER (SELECT
COUNT(*)) but I find that if you are doing those items, you
normally have a
Dear list members,I am having table with 4M rows.I am trying to update all these rows with statementupdate mytable set mycolumn=0;At the same time there are insert happening on the table.but all these insert are in waiting mode. does update is locking the table for insert?does insert and update
Hi,
Are there any benchmarks that compare different major versions of
PostgreSQL?
Cheers,
WBL
Hello
pgbench test - default configuration
Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Regards
Pavel
On 09/01/2008, Willy-Bas Loos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi chaps,
I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one supplied in
contrib.
I noticed this uses the -m fast argument for start and stop.
Before I setup the scripts I was using -m smart to make sure all
queries were finished before shutting dowm on all but my WAL slave.
I was going
Ivan,
Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
exact count and what other DB means with an exact count and how
other DB deal with it?
PostgreSQL will give you an exact count of the contents of the
database as it is in the moment you begin your count. (i.e. the
On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:39 , Naz Gassiep wrote:
In a PHP project I have several functions that I use for DB
operations. I only want to allow one of them to write, all the
others are for reading only.
(Using DB level perms are out, as this is the function usage I'm
trying to control, not
Glyn Astill wrote:
I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one supplied in
contrib.
I noticed this uses the -m fast argument for start and stop.
Before I setup the scripts I was using -m smart to make sure all
queries were finished before shutting dowm on all but my WAL
--- On Wed, 9/1/08, Ashish Karalkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From: Ashish Karalkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [GENERAL] Insert waiting for update?To: "pggeneral" pgsql-general@postgresql.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wednesday, 9 January, 2008, 4:29 PMDear list members,I am having table with 4M
Thanks Laurenz, that's a good point, I shall leave them as is.
Glyn
--- Albe Laurenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glyn Astill wrote:
I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one
supplied in
contrib.
I noticed this uses the -m fast argument for start and stop.
Before I
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:02:23 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
Hi,
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table are
restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and restore
it
to another
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:39 +0100
Harald Armin Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan,
Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
exact count and what other DB means with an exact count and
how other DB deal with it?
PostgreSQL will give you an exact count of the
On Jan 9, 2008 9:12 AM, A. Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:02:23 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
Hi,
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
are
restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows
Josh Harrison escribió:
Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of some columns.
But What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
want my rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in
TableABC in Database 1 ???
You can't.
--
Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense to use it with
a where.
Saying using count(*) is bad design means that the only design that you can
visualize is the specific one that you are using.
There are tons of real world examples where you need count. That is why so
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 14:07:13 + mailte Raymond O'Donnell folgendes:
On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
are restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order,
2008/1/9, Sim Zacks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is because
they are better products.
Not necessarily. FOSS products don't have a selling team to persuade
and bribe people. Expensive solutions, and that is in part what make
them
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:45:11 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I want my
rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in TableABC in
Database 1 ???
For what reason?
Again: there is no order
Hi,
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table are
restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and restore
it to another database, will it have the rows in the same order
r1,r2,r3,r4,r5? Does this apply
On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
are restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and
restore it to another database, will it have the rows in the
On Jan 9, 2008 9:35 AM, A. Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 14:07:13 + mailte Raymond O'Donnell
folgendes:
On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
are restored in the same order?
On Jan 9, 2008 9:59 AM, A. Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:45:11 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
want my
rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in
TableABC
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
I am having table with 4M rows.
I am trying to update all these rows with statement
update mytable set mycolumn=0;
At the same time there are insert happening on the table.
but all these insert are in waiting mode.
does update is locking the table for insert?
My Postgre version its the 8.2. I´ve reached to do the path i wanted, but
when i do a explain analyze on the select it return 500 miliseconds. Is this
a good search? Is there a way to slow down this time with postgre 8.3? What
is a good time for xml xpath´s?
Thanks
2008/1/8, x asasaxax [EMAIL
I believe I was misunderstood. The fact that a product is closed source does not
make it a better product. Some companies that are using Oracle would be better
off using PostgreSQL. Other companies that need the features that Oracle offers
would not be better off using Postgresql.
However,
Hi there,
I am trying to install Postgres 8.1.11 on Mac Leopard. Compilation was
ok. Now, the initdb has some problems:
$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/initdb -D --locale=C /Users/schwarzer/Documents/
data_postgres
...
selecting default max_connections ... 10
selecting default shared_buffers ...
Thanks for the replayI think you missed on second detail mail :For more details:I have two tables master,child.with child having fk to master.Now
that master table contains 4M rows . while I update them (Master table)
the inserts are going into waiting mode on child table.Update
acquired row
On Jan 9, 2008 3:24 AM, Rayudu Madhava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sir,
I am very new to Pgsql. I have a server serving 200
clients. I want to prepare a failover /mirroring
server which in case the original server fails should
take over automatically. Kindly Guide me.
Probably the easiest
Josh Harrison escribió:
Another quick question...When you issue a query like this
select * from dummy limit 10
What 10 rows are fetched? like first 10 or last 10 or the first 10 from
first block or ?
Any 10. (First 10 in the physical table _if_ a seqscan is used).
And this query
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Harrison escribió:
Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of some columns.
But What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
want my rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:54:21 -0500
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Harrison escribió:
Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of
some columns. But What if I want to maintain the same order as
in the database1? ie., I want
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:33:54 +0200
Sim Zacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense
to use it with a where.
I got the impression from others comments that postgresql
under perform other DB even when a where clause on indexed column is
On Jan 9, 2008 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Harrison escribió:
Another quick question...When you issue a query like this
select * from dummy limit 10
What 10 rows are fetched? like first 10 or last 10 or the first 10
from
first block or ?
Any 10.
On Jan 9, 2008 8:33 AM, Sim Zacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense to use it
with
a where.
Saying using count(*) is bad design means that the only design that you can
visualize is the specific one that you are using.
There are tons
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:37:38PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pain in the ...
Really? I don't think a RAID
On Jan 9, 2008 10:21 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:33:54 +0200
Sim Zacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense
to use it with a where.
I got the impression from others comments that postgresql
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:28:15PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
Does it make any sense *knowing* how the implementation works to load
records in a table in a specific order to improve performances?
Well, this is more or less what CLUSTER does. There are some cases where
happening to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
I got the impression that even counting with clauses on on indexed
columns means you'll have to check if columns are still there. That
seems to imply that the extra cost make pg under perform compared to
other DB even in
On Jan 9, 2008 11:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:28:15PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
Does it make any sense *knowing* how the implementation works to load
records in a table in a specific order to improve performances?
Well, this is more
Josh Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
My questions
1. I pg_dumped dummy and Shuffled_dummy (from database1) to another database
(database2)
When I issued the query in both database (database1 and database2)
select * from dummy limit 1000 ( the planner chooses seq scan for this query)
On Jan 9, 2008 11:28 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:54:21 -0500
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Harrison escribió:
Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of
some columns.
Stefan Schwarzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FATAL: XX000: failed to initialize lc_messages to
LOCATION: InitializeGUCOptions, guc.c:2666
Typically what this means is that you have an improper setting of LANG
or LC_ALL in your environment (improper meaning that it doesn't match
any of the
On Jan 9, 2008 10:46 AM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
I got the impression that even counting with clauses on on indexed
columns means you'll have to check if columns are still there. That
seems to imply
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
accessed frequently. So clustering the table according to one index will
yield poor performance to queries involving other indexes.
Maybe not poor, but certainly not optimised.
Index-only scan is a good solution for this I guess
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:03:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
And if, for some god forsaken reason, you need to operate on that
number, there's always lock table...
Yes. You could also store the data in ISAM :-P
I feel dirty. :)
You should. Go wash your brain out with soap. LOCK TABLE
On Jan 9, 2008 11:56 AM, Andreas Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Josh Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
My questions
1. I pg_dumped dummy and Shuffled_dummy (from database1) to another
database
(database2)
When I issued the query in both database (database1 and database2)
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
I am having table with 4M rows.
I am trying to update all these rows with statement
update mytable set mycolumn=0;
At the same time there are insert happening on the table.
but all these insert are in waiting mode.
does update is locking the table for insert?
On Jan 9, 2008 12:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
accessed frequently. So clustering the table according to one index will
yield poor performance to queries involving other indexes.
Maybe not poor, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:01:05 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, everything's a tradeoff. If PostgreSQL had visibility
information in the indexes,
Hi,
i am trying to understand Prepared Statements. I am asking because i want to
understand the impact of Prepared statements to my application.
Actually i use Hibernate, DBCP Connection Pool with Postgresql-JDBC Driver and
Postgresql 8.1.
- I know there is a PREPARE Statement in Postgresql
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, everything's a tradeoff. If PostgreSQL had visibility
information in the indexes, it would have to lock both the table and
index for every write, thus slowing down all the other queries that
are trying to access
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:58:29 -0800
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... we are getting near to the point. I understand the trade-off
problem in storing into indexes id the row is still there.
Is there a way to get the count of the rows that *may be* there,
If you analyze
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo írta:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:39 +0100
Harald Armin Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan,
Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
exact count and what other DB means with an exact count and
how other DB deal with it?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
There are three companies I know of that have done effective marketing of
systems.
Company O has a very advanced system with
On Jan 9, 2008 12:58 PM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:01:05 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, everything's
On 09.01.2008, at 09:05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
cug
--
http://www.event-s.net
---(end of
On Jan 9, 2008 10:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
There are three companies I know of that have done
straight from jdbc2.1 doc
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jdbc/spec2/jdbc2.1.frame6.html
Statement
Statement object to submit a set of heterogeneous update commands together
as a single unit, or batch, to the underlying DBMS
i.e. execute Statement without parameters
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:45:10 -0600
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But my account rep told me it was easy, and he'd never lie to me,
would he? @_@
If he uses count(*) maybe, otherwise he is locking your $.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.
...
thanks.
In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
regardless of other transactions. Which way do you prefer?
Considering the
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I know there is a PREPARE Statement in Postgresql and read the docs.
- in PostgresqlJDBC i have a prepareThreshold parameter which i left to
default of 5.
- in DBCP i have a property poolPreparedStatements, set to true. Does ist
just configure
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Guido Neitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FrontBase. It has an incredibly easy to configure replication and
multi master clustering support, is very reliable and can also handle
really big databases.
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn't say
On Jan 9, 2008 6:00 PM, x asasaxax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My Postgre version its the 8.2. I´ve reached to do the path i wanted, but
when i do a explain analyze on the select it return 500 miliseconds. Is this
a good search? Is there a way to slow down this time with postgre 8.3? What
is a
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo írta:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.
...
thanks.
In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
regardless of other transactions. Which
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:37PM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
For example if I have a query like
select column2 from ABC where column1 20
and table ABC is indexed on (column1,column2) then Oracle will not goto the
heap to fetch the tuples. It will return them from the index itself since
Hi,
I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have added
8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have troubles.
Nothing else have changed ... I'm on a Dell server, and all the memory
diagnostics from Dell seems to be good ...
When I have a lot of
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:57 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Hi,
I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have added
8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have troubles.
Nothing else have changed ... I'm on a Dell server, and all the memory
=?utf-8?q?Herv=C3=A9_Piedvache?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I have a lot of connexions (persistante connexions from 6 web apache/php
serveurs using PDO, about 110 process on each web servers) on the server, or
long request, it's difficult for me to know when it's appening, the kernel
Tom,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
=?utf-8?q?Herv=C3=A9_Piedvache?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I have a lot of connexions (persistante connexions from 6 web
apache/php serveurs using PDO, about 110 process on each web servers) on
the server, or long request, it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zoltan Boszormenyi) writes:
which will be fast and depending on the initial value of COUNT(*)
it will be very close to the exact figure. You can extend the example
with more columns if you know your SELECT COUNT(*) ... WHERE
conditions in advance but this way you have to
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2008, Jeff Davis a écrit :
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:57 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Hi,
I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have
added 8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have
troubles. Nothing else have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0800
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted to LKML here:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/2/12/54202
because linux has a behavior -- which in my opinion is a bug -- that
causes the OOM
Hi All,
First, some background:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
- The table referred to below is 120+ million rows, and has a width of 27
columns (15 smallints, 5 integers, 4 dates, 1 integer[], 1 single
On 09.01.2008, at 13:51, Martin wrote:
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn't say
anything about it qualifies as incredibly easy and reliable it
is not.
We had never ever any reliability issues with FrontBase as long as
didn't try to insert garbage. It really doesn't
On Jan 9, 2008 3:57 PM, Hervé Piedvache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
0+0
Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Free swap = 15623168kB
Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Total swap = 15623172kB
Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Free swap: 15623168kB
Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x84d0,
Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
They won't even let you update to 7.3.something-reasonably-current ?
Resign. Go find a job with a boss whose IQ is above room
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
pgbench test - default configuration
Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Wow, even though it is a single benchmark, I have
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
It looks like a two-phase commit answer, if I'm reading correctly. You can
do this today on many systems (including Postgres), but the
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Richard Brown wrote:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
Just make sure you CYA so when said server eats itself the decision maker
can't point the finger at you. Give them a copy of a
Pavel Stehule wrote:
pgbench test - default configuration
Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Was that the same version of pgbench each time? Or was it
Josh Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aggregate (cost=342178.51..342178.52 rows=1 width=0)
- Bitmap Heap Scan on person (cost=3120.72..341806.71 rows=148721
width=0)
Recheck Cond: (person_id 114600::numeric)
- Bitmap Index Scan on person_pk
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0800
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted to LKML here:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/2/12/54202
because linux has a behavior -- which in my opinion is a bug -- that
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 20:09, Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Richard Brown wrote:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
Just make sure you CYA so when said server eats itself the decision
Can you tell me, in how much time did the query will take with indexes +
tsearch2?
How much time take a satisfactory query?
Can you show me some examples with tsearch2 and xml indexes?
Thanks
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
HINT: Close open transactions soon to avoid wraparound problems.
INFO: vacuuming public.sessions
INFO: scanned index sessions_pkey to remove 2 row
=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
INFO: sessions: found 2 removable, 6157654 nonremovable row versions
in 478069 pages
DETAIL: 6155746 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
The problem is that you've got
Hi all,
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE table_catalog=? AND
Gábor Farkas wrote:
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
on the db-server, 4 postgres processes are idle in transaction, but
none is older than 2 days.
If you have something idle in
Ken Johanson wrote:
Hi all,
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE
Tom Lane wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
INFO: sessions: found 2 removable, 6157654 nonremovable row versions
in 478069 pages
DETAIL: 6155746 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
The problem is
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gábor Farkas wrote:
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
on the db-server, 4 postgres processes are idle in transaction, but
none is older than 2 days.
If you
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE table_catalog=? AND table_schema=? AND
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
