Re: [GENERAL] Random-looking primary keys in the range 100000..999999

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:24:31AM -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: I'm looking for a way to implement pseudorandom primary keys in the range 10..99. The randomization scheme does not need to be cryptographically strong. As long as it is not easy to figure out in a few minutes it's good

Re: [GENERAL] memory leak while trying to update/alter column in postgresql

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Madhurima Das madhurima@gmail.com wrote: int main() { PGconn *conn; PGresult *res; int i=0,nFields=0,row=0,col=0; conn = PQconnectdb(dbname=test1 host=localhost user=postgres password=yyy); if(PQstatus(conn) == CONNECTION_BAD) {

Re: [GENERAL] Failed to build transaction for opengeo-server

Hi Adrian and all, thanks for the help. I was able to uninstall opengeo-server. Then I started getting a new error to do with missing dependencies for postgis21. I uninstalled postgis21, updated yum, and reinstalled postgis21. Success. Thanks! On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Adrian Klaver

Re : Re : [GENERAL] Query top 10 and others

Thanks!I'll investigate (explain) performance for both versions.Atenciosamente,Edson Richter-- Mensagem original --De:David Johnston Data:04/07/2014 21h20Para:Edson Richter;Cc:pgsql-general@postgresql.org;Assunto:Re: Re : [GENERAL] Query top 10 and others with

Re: [GENERAL] Very high latency, low bandwidth replication

Thanks Francisco for these inputs. I hadn't considered log shipping as I knew I didn't want to track changes to all tables (and databases). Setting up a local partial mirror is an interesting thought which hadn't crossed my mind .. I'll giver that some consideration. Though currently I am

Re: [GENERAL] Very high latency, low bandwidth replication

Thanks Stuart. I'll do some measurements on plaintext dump to git. On 2 July 2014 09:46, Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net wrote: On 30 June 2014 15:05, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote: What are people's thoughts about a more optimal solution? I would like to use a more

Re: [GENERAL] Very high latency, low bandwidth replication

Hi Bob: On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote: Though currently I am thinking to address the problem of generating deltas at the application level rather than to use postgresql features which are largely optimized for a slightly different set of circumstances

Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump slower than pg_restore

On 7/4/2014 11:30 AM, Bosco Rama wrote: Random thought: What OS kernel are you running? Kernels between 3.2.x and 3.9.x were known to have IO scheduling issues. This was highlighted most by the kernel in Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) as shown here:

Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump slower than pg_restore

On 7/4/2014 9:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: There are only 32 table, no functions, but mostly large objects. Not sure how to know about the LOs, but a quick check from the table sizes I estimate at only 2GB, so 16GB could be LOs. There are 7,528,803 entries in pg_catalog.pg_largeobject. Hmm ... how

Re: [GENERAL] NOT IN and NOT EXIST

On 07/04/2014 06:12 AM, Sameer Kumar wrote: NOT EXISTS translates to HASH ANTI JOIN and NOT IN translates to NOT (HASHED) operation. Given that the columns used in NOT IN clause (for outer as well as inner) are NOT NULL, should not it translate a NOT IN plan similar to NOT EXISTS plan? It