"Shane Wright" writes:
> It's not that it isn't using any index (so enable_seqscan=off doesn't
> help), it's that the index it picks is suboptimal.
> The query is based on 3 of the table columns - there is an index on all
> three, but it prefers to use an index on just two of them, then
> filteri
Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, David Fetter writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:07:21AM +0200, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
>>> 15x4250 = 63750 = 62.25TB
>> SATA disk space is quite cheap these days, so unless something is very
>> badly wrong with your funding model, this is not really a
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
> As mentioned above, by "fixing" the behavior to be what you're expecting
> you'd be breaking the defined behavior of ALTER TABLE.
I don't understand. The domain's have default values, how will it
break alter table ? Please explain.
--
GJ
-
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Christophe wrote:
> Playing the straight man, I have to ask: Scalability issues with locks in PG
> vs Oracle?
(in slow motion) no. Locks aren't something particular I'd
like to discuss, this topic just came from a post upthread.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sen
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, David Fetter writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:07:21AM +0200, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the company, we're facing with serious disk space problems which
>> is not caused by PostgreSQL, but the nature of our data. Database
>> sizes are around 200-300GB, which is
Hi,
I have somewhat of a quandary with a large table in my database;
PostgreSQL is choosing the 'wrong' index for a certain kind of query;
causing performance to become an order of magnitude slower (query times
usually measured in milliseconds now become seconds/minutes!).
It's not that it isn't
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM, paulo matadr wrote:
>
> My vacuum was follow error below:
> WARNING: oldest xmin is far in the past
> HINT: Close open transactions soon to avoid wraparound problems.
> No have transactions in locked ,
Transactions don't have to hold locks to cause problems.
Quoth "Adam Rich" :
>> I'd like to make a single query that returns a number of rows using a
>> 'WHERE id IN ()' condition, but I'd like the rows to be
>> returned in the order in which the ids are given in the list.
>>
> Depending on how many IDs you have in your list, you can accomplish this
> wi
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to make a single query that returns a number of rows using a
> 'WHERE id IN ()' condition, but I'd like the rows to be
> returned in the order in which the ids are given in the list.
>
> Is this possible?
>
Depending on how many IDs you have in your list, you can accom
Playing the straight man, I have to ask: Scalability issues with locks
in PG vs Oracle?
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
My vacuum was follow error below:
WARNING: oldest xmin is far in the past
HINT: Close open transactions soon to avoid wraparound problems.
No have transactions in locked ,
what's could be happen?
Paulo Moraes
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbus
Hi all,
I'd like to make a single query that returns a number of rows using a
'WHERE id IN ()' condition, but I'd like the rows to be
returned in the order in which the ids are given in the list.
Is this possible?
Sebastian
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
On Dec 22, 2008, at 4:49 AM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
so, consider this one:
create sequence seq1;
create domain foo1 as bigint default nextval('seq1') not null;
create domain foo2 as timestamp without time zone default now() not
null;
create type footype as
(
a foo1,
b foo2
) ;
create
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:07:21AM +0200, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the company, we're facing with serious disk space problems which
> is not caused by PostgreSQL, but the nature of our data. Database
> sizes are around 200-300GB, which is relatively not that much, but
> databases require
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
I still haven't seen a post regarding the Oracle scalability issue. Where is
the data??
You mean the PG scalability issue in comparison to Oracle?
Yes.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liber
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> I think that to describe either OS or commercial software as better or
> worse is misleading. The most that can be said is that each approach
> serves a different purpose and exists in a different environment.
Well said.
--
Jonah H. Harr
In-Reply-to: <200812220435.mbm4zmd07...@momjian.us>
On: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:35:48 -0500 (EST), Bruce Momjian
wrote:
> I am sure there are smart people at all the database companies. I do
> believe that open source development harnesses the abilities of its
> intelligent people better than comme
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> The other difference is that I said it jokingly, whereas you (Jonah)
> seem to be bitter about the whole matter.
Well, it wasn't clear and I was just in a generally bad mood. Usually
you'd add a :) at the end, which you didn't this time.
I've such a structure:
create table catalog_fam (
famid int primary key,
name varchar(255),
action smallint
);
create table catalog_macro (
macroid int primary key,
famid int references catalog_fam (famid),
name varchar(255),
action smallint
);
create table catalog_cat (
catid int
Scott Marlowe escribió:
> The difference is HE put forth an opinion about the pg developers
> being smarter, but you put forth what seems like a statement of fact
> with no evidence to back it up.
The other difference is that I said it jokingly, whereas you (Jonah)
seem to be bitter about the who
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
> I still haven't seen a post regarding the Oracle scalability issue. Where is
> the data??
You mean the PG scalability issue in comparison to Oracle?
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-g
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> but that defeats whole purpose of domains, doesn't it ?
>
> well, on top of that - I could create another domain with default
> (nextval, now), but still
Well I can't, it doesn't work :(
create domain xyz as footype default(nextva
so, consider this one:
create sequence seq1;
create domain foo1 as bigint default nextval('seq1') not null;
create domain foo2 as timestamp without time zone default now() not null;
create type footype as
(
a foo1,
b foo2
) ;
create table bar(a bigint not null, b varchar(20));
insert into ba
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
The difference is HE put forth an opinion about the pg developers
being smarter, but you put forth what seems like a statement of fact
with no evidence to back it up. One is quite subjective and open for
debate on bo
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I think one of the points that proves this is the chunks of innovative
> code that have been put into postgresql that were basically written by
> one or two guys in < 1 year. Small sharp teams can tackle one
> particular problem and do it ve
Hi,
In the company, we're facing with serious disk space problems which is
not caused by PostgreSQL, but the nature of our data. Database sizes are
around 200-300GB, which is relatively not that much, but databases
require strict backup policies:
- Incremental backup for each day. (250GB)
- Full
26 matches
Mail list logo
