Hi
I have some code using psycopg in python. Connecting in async mode.
I am trying to catch time outs etc, basically after a set amount of
time I am assuming something has failed.
I then want to use select pg_cancel_backend(15209); to cancel the
query. But I can't unless I am connected as the
Further testing shows it is windows networking causing the issue.
Copying files to and from the server is 5 to 6 times slower on a
Windows client compared to the Linux client.
The issue is not specific to libpq.
--
Rob
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To
the 8.4 and the vista is using 9.0
Any way, I will try that this afternoon.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:36 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 11/06/10 6:13 PM, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
Ok, So I did that, in the windows capture file are many many lines of
Red text on a black background
at 3:19 PM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
On 07/11/10 09:13, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
Ok, So I did that, in the windows capture file are many many lines of
Red text on a black background, I assume thats a bad thing.
If you examine the packet it'll say invalid checksum
Hi
I have a problem with libpq on windows. Connecting to a db and running
a select * from some_table; is very slow.
The table has only 1800 rows, 7 columns. No blobs etc.
The query is taking around 3500ms, in linux it takes around 800ms.
(About 500ms is network time, the server is on the
, while the linux host machine is getting 800ms.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com wrote:
On 11/06/2010 04:54 PM, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
Hi
I have a problem with libpq on windows. Connecting to a db and running
a select * from some_table; is very slow.
The table
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:06 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
when you say 500mS, thats the round trip ping time?
It's a bit less, for example SELECT max(id) on the same table takes
about 350ms. Yes, I am in New Zealand, the server is in Canada. pings
take about 275ms average.
I
the ACK number is always different.
As I said before I really don't know what I am looking at.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 11/06/10 5:12 PM, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:06 PM, John R Piercepie...@hogranch.com wrote:
I
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:06 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
how about if you do something like, SELECT * FROM SOME_TABLE INTO
SOME_OTHER_TABLE; which doesn't involve returning data?
In this case the times are as close to equal as to make no difference,
within a couple of ms of
Hi, I have not yet seen an answer to the following, can I assume it's
not a problem?
On Thu, 2001-09-06 at 19:58, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
Hello.
I am looking at useing uuid's as primary keys rather than a normal
sequence of numbers.
The uuids are long text strings like so
a unique identifier.
But I was wondering if this will impact on the speed of the database.
In the long run the application does not need to be blindingly fast as 99%
of the time it is waiting on human interaction.
Any ideas?
--
Rob Brown-Bayliss
---==o
11 matches
Mail list logo
