On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Szymon Guz wrote:
> Hi,
> this is maybe a stupid question, but I don't know how to explain to my
> coworkers why performing many inserts in autocommit mode is so much slower
> than making all of them in one transaction.
> Why is that so slow?
The real issue is that
On 04/08/2011 04:59 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
Hi,
this is maybe a stupid question, but I don't know how to explain to my
coworkers why performing many inserts in autocommit mode is so much
slower than making all of them in one transaction.
Why is that so slow?
Unless you have synchronous_commit di
On 04/07/2011 03:46 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 04/07/11 1:42 PM, Shianmiin wrote:
Since the connection pool will be used by all tenants, eventually each
connection will hit all the tables/views.
don't all connections in a given pool have to use the same user
credentials? won't that be prob
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 1:59:50 pm Szymon Guz wrote:
> Hi,
> this is maybe a stupid question, but I don't know how to explain to my
> coworkers why performing many inserts in autocommit mode is so much slower
> than making all of them in one transaction.
>
> Why is that so slow?
Because autoc
On 04/07/11 1:42 PM, Shianmiin wrote:
Since the connection pool will be used by all tenants, eventually each
connection will hit all the tables/views.
don't all connections in a given pool have to use the same user
credentials? won't that be problematic for this architecture?
--
Sent v
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Shianmiin wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We are evaluating using PostgreSQL to implement a multitenant database,
> Currently we are running some tests on single-database-multiple-schema model
> (basically, all tenants have the same set of database objects under then own
> s
Hi there,
We are evaluating using PostgreSQL to implement a multitenant database,
Currently we are running some tests on single-database-multiple-schema model
(basically, all tenants have the same set of database objects under then own
schema within the same database).
The application will maintai
It has nothing to do with autocommit and everything to do with batching them
together.
For instance, if you run ten update queries in autocommit mode I would expect
it to take exactly the same time as:
Begin
Exec Query1
Commit
…
Begin
Exec Query10
Commit
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.
Hi,
this is maybe a stupid question, but I don't know how to explain to my
coworkers why performing many inserts in autocommit mode is so much slower
than making all of them in one transaction.
Why is that so slow?
regards
Szymon
Also, in PG8.4+, is there any way to set the default tablespace on a
per-schema basis?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Yang Zhang wrote:
> Last I could find on this, it was slated for 8.1 inclusion:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-08/msg00425.php
>
> But it doesn't seem to
Last I could find on this, it was slated for 8.1 inclusion:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-08/msg00425.php
But it doesn't seem to be there in my PG8.4
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.po
Steve Crawford writes:
> On 04/07/2011 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Steve Crawford writes:
>>> 1. Where can I read up on the purpose and properties of a data-type of
>>> unknown?
>> It's the type initially imputed to unadorned string literals and NULL...
> Is there a place in the documentation
Thanks Tom.
On 04/07/2011 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Crawford writes:
1. Where can I read up on the purpose and properties of a data-type of
unknown?
It's the type initially imputed to unadorned string literals and NULL...
Is there a place in the documentation that explains this? I haven
Steve Crawford writes:
> 1. Where can I read up on the purpose and properties of a data-type of
> unknown?
It's the type initially imputed to unadorned string literals and NULL
constants. The parser normally converts these to constants of some
other type, as soon as it can figure out what type
>
>
>>
and, FWIW, here's another trace, which is NEARLY the same as the first one I
posted, with the difference being a slightly different line number at #3. I
will be quiet now and leave the brain trust to ponder. Let me know if there
is anything else I can get for you guys.
#0 0x006ce
I was working on a test restore and got:
WARNING: column "astring" has type "unknown"
The restore worked correctly - it was a warning not an error - and we
located the cause and corrected it. But I did some playing leading to
questions for which I have been unable to locate answers:
steve=#
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Curvey writes:
> > And voila! Here is the backtrace:
>
> > #0 0x006ce317 in GetMemoryChunkSpace (pointer=0x347cc70) at
> > mcxt.c:264
> > #1 0x006d3d56 in writetup_index (state=0x26fc530, tapenum= > optimized out>, stup=
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Michael Gould
wrote:
> We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
> procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and only
> allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our stored
> procedures?
Just want
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 12:45 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Michael Gould wrote:
> > We wouldn't make any of the system users a superuser in Postgres and in my
> > 20+ years experience in the industry we provide software for, the
> > possibility of having a
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Michael Gould wrote:
> We wouldn't make any of the system users a superuser in Postgres and in my
> 20+ years experience in the industry we provide software for, the
> possibility of having any users of the system that are able to hack or even
> understand
On 04/07/11 7:31 AM, Michael Gould wrote:
We wouldn't make any of the system users a superuser in Postgres
are you providing software run on a customers box, or a turnkey managed
system (hardware+software) ?
anyone who has root access can easily gain database access. anyone with
physical
On 04/07/2011 03:46 PM, Michael Gould wrote:
We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and
only allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our
stored procedures?
Best Regards
It dep
Chris Curvey writes:
> And voila! Here is the backtrace:
> #0 0x006ce317 in GetMemoryChunkSpace (pointer=0x347cc70) at
> mcxt.c:264
> #1 0x006d3d56 in writetup_index (state=0x26fc530, tapenum= optimized out>, stup=) at tuplesort.c:2924
> #2 0x006d2af7 in dumptuples (st
Merlin Moncure Thursday 07 April 2011 15:53:00
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:39 AM, rsmogura wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > May I ask if PostgreSQL supports arrays of arrays directly or indirectly,
> > or if such support is planned? I'm interested about pseudo constructs
> > like: 1. Directly - (integer
"Michael Molz" writes:
> we´re running PostgreSQL 8.4.7 for an CRM System on a Linux machine.
> Database contains about 540 tables with summary about 2.5 million records.
> Since this weeks the backup stops with an error message always at the same
> table. It´s irrelevant what tool we use to
We wouldn't make any of the system users a superuser in Postgres and in my
20+ years experience in the industry we provide software for, the
possibility of having any users of the system that are able to hack or even
understand what they have if they were able to is slim. I understand that
anythin
Hi folks,
we´re running PostgreSQL 8.4.7 for an CRM System on a Linux machine. Database
contains about 540 tables with summary about 2.5 million records. Since this
weeks the backup stops with an error message always at the same table. It´s
irrelevant what tool we use to backup (pgAdmin III,
On Apr 7, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Yang Zhang wrote:
> Is it possible to attach or detach parts of a DB (e.g. tablespaces),
> such that I can flexibly move the disks containing the DB tables
> around to different hosts?
>
> The last discussion I could find on this topic is from 2007, and the
> answer w
Le 07/04/2011 04:05, Yang Zhang a écrit :
> Is it possible to attach or detach parts of a DB (e.g. tablespaces),
> such that I can flexibly move the disks containing the DB tables
> around to different hosts?
>
No, you can't. But you actually don't need to. Users won't be able to
access the objec
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:39 AM, rsmogura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> May I ask if PostgreSQL supports arrays of arrays directly or indirectly, or
> if such support is planned? I'm interested about pseudo constructs like:
> 1. Directly - (integer[4])[5] - this is equivalent to multidimensional
> array, but
On Apr 7, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Michael Gould wrote:
> We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
> procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and only
> allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our stored
> procedures?
If use is
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, abhishek.itbhu2004
wrote:
> I am still new to postgres. Can you please tell the exact syntax for this. I
> tried different things but was not able to retun the ids of the newly
> inserted rows.
in 9.1 with wCTE you will have a very direct way to do this. in 9.0
do
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 07:46:36AM -0500, Michael Gould wrote:
> We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
> procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and only
> allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our stored
> procedures?
On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Chris Curvey wrote:
Let me see if I can load it somewhere else. And since the only other
machine I have to try it on is a Windows box, I will be able to answer
my own question of "are pg_dump dumps OS-portable?"
The answer there is "mostly". Contrib modules can cause
On 7 April 2011 14:46, Michael Gould wrote:
> We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
> procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and only
> allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our stored
> procedures?
>
>
>
Protect them
We want to protect the intellectual property of several of our stored
procedures. If we put them in a separate schema in the database and only
allow execute on anything in that schema would that protect our stored
procedures?
Best Regards
--
Michael Gould, Managing Partner
Intermod
>
>
> Are you able to distribute your dataset - if not to the general public,
> then to someone interested in identifying the fault?
>
probably not. but let me ask...maybe I can come up with a creative
solution.
> Does the same dataset crash Pg when restored on another machine?
That is a good
On 04/07/2011 06:37 PM, Chris Curvey wrote:
2) install bison, flex and libreadline5-dev (sudo apt-get install
PACKAGE). I already had the gcc package installed
The easy way to do this on Debian/ubuntu, if you're building something
that packages exist for, is (eg):
sudo apt-get build-dep po
>
>
> Nor I. https://launchpad.net/~pitti/+archive/postgresql/+packages doesn't
> seem to list any.
>
> Martin: Are your packages stripped, or do they include minimal debug info
> in the main packages? Do you put your debuginfo debs anywhere accessible?
>
>
I decided to just try building it myself
Hello,
May I ask if PostgreSQL supports arrays of arrays directly or
indirectly, or if such support is planned? I'm interested about pseudo
constructs like:
1. Directly - (integer[4])[5] - this is equivalent to multidimensional
array, but may be differently represented on protocol serializatio
40 matches
Mail list logo
