true dat :)
On 10/12/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Ilia Kantor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Bitmap Heap Scan on objects_hier (cost=60.29..179.57 rows=80 width=600)> (actual time=0.835..1.115 rows=138 loops=1)
vs> Merge Join (cost=62.33..576.80 rows=1117 width=600) (actual> time=0.54
"Ilia Kantor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bitmap Heap Scan on objects_hier (cost=60.29..179.57 rows=80 width=600)
> (actual time=0.835..1.115 rows=138 loops=1)
vs
> Merge Join (cost=62.33..576.80 rows=1117 width=600) (actual
> time=0.542..2.898 rows=138 loops=1)
Hmm, sure looks from here li
>> It is bitmap-OR on multiple index(PK) lookups.
> Describing it doesn't help. We need an *actual* EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
Sure, why not..
6ms for
Bitmap Heap Scan on objects_hier (cost=60.29..179.57 rows=80 width=600)
(actual time=0.835..1.115 rows=138 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((id = 1) OR (id =
Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which way do you suggest to "Prevent libpq's PQfnumber() from
> lowercasing the column name" (which is listed as a TODO item). If
> column name has quotes around it we're just removing the quotes and
> comparing with the related column name. Else, lowercasing the col
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > Proposed TODO entries for pg_dump:
> >
> > * Allow selection of individual object(s) of all types, not just tables
> > * In a selective dump, allow dumping of all dependencies of the objects
>
> May I suggest the implementation of -l / -L like pg_restore has?
> So you c
I wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (gdb) p BufferDescriptors[781]
>> $1 = {tag = {rnode = {spcNode = 1663, dbNode = 16385, relNode = 2666},
>> blockNum = 1}, flags = 70, usage_count = 5, refcount = 4294967294,
>> wait_backend_pid = 748, buf_hdr_lock = 0 '\0', buf_id = 781,
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
That would probably work, but it would ONLY deal with the issue for
$_TD. In your function $event will still hit this problem.
Well, fixing $_TD would pretty much fix all the problems I've been having.
As far as "$event", that is in my control and easily fixed
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> >> I was wonderring, because I create a lot of server side utility functions,
> >> whether adding an option to pg_dump to just dump functions has been
> >> considered. I did a quick perusal of the code, and noted that there is a
> >> separate section within
Sizes look right compared to beta2 ... please check it over and make sure
there are no outstanding issues ... will announce over the next 24-48 hrs,
once Dave has had a change to get the pgInstaller up to date ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.o
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (gdb) p BufferDescriptors[781]
> $1 = {tag = {rnode = {spcNode = 1663, dbNode = 16385, relNode = 2666},
> blockNum = 1}, flags = 70, usage_count = 5, refcount = 4294967294,
> wait_backend_pid = 748, buf_hdr_lock = 0 '\0', buf_id = 781, freeNext = -2
(gdb) p BufferDescriptors[781]
$1 = {tag = {rnode = {spcNode = 1663, dbNode = 16385, relNode = 2666}, blockNum
= 1}, flags = 70, usage_count = 5, refcount = 4294967294,
wait_backend_pid = 748, buf_hdr_lock = 0 '\0', buf_id = 781, freeNext = -2,
io_in_progress_lock = 1615, content_lock = 1616}
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trivial observation: process 748 is a manually-issued VACUUM (manually,
> by cron), it's holding locks other VACUUMs are waiting for, and is
> waiting on LockBufferForCleanup. I guess this means it lost a signal,
> or somebody else is holding a pin on t
You don't get to read part of a page, but you may be dealing with
probabilities. For example, consider a case where there are ten data
pages, and you are going to read 15% of the tuples. There is a 50%
chance that your scan will start in the first half of a leaf page and
only need two leaf pages.
On 10/9/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 10/8/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This is exactly the same example discussed in previous threads on this
> >> issue. Do you think it will change anyone's mind?
>
> > in any case, i s
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:28:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thought that comes to mind is that these decisions are probably
>> comparable to those made by gcc conditional on -march flags. Do we
>> get access to the -march setting by means of predefined symbol
Has anybody tried building beta2 or later with MSVC? It doesn'ät work for me -
it builds fine, but whenever I run with it I get a coredump from it whenever I
try to connect.
If I revert it to the 8.0 version of port/getaddrinfo.c, things work again.
The problem shows itself in that conn->addr_c
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> This may or may not be related to previous threads regarding vacuum problems.
> Following the last thread, we built the development snapshot of Oct 6 with
> --enable-integer-datetimes and --enable-debug. We have had the autovacuum
> running every ten seconds. The only tabl
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Tom is suggesting having different behaviour for x86 and x86_64. The
> x86 will still run on x86_64 architecture would it not? So we'll have
> two binaries for each OS, yes?
A quick glance around tells me that most free operating systems are
treating x86 and x86_64 as separat
This may or may not be related to previous threads regarding vacuum problems.
Following the last thread, we built the development snapshot of Oct 6 with
--enable-integer-datetimes and --enable-debug. We have had the autovacuum
running every ten seconds. The only table which will meet the autovacu
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:28:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thought that comes to mind is that these decisions are probably
> comparable to those made by gcc conditional on -march flags. Do we
> get access to the -march setting by means of predefined symbols?
> If so we could compile different
Ilia,
> It is bitmap-OR on multiple index(PK) lookups.
Describing it doesn't help. We need an *actual* EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>Please post an explain analyze on your query with a 20-30 item IN clause so
that we can see what plan is being generated.
It is bitmap-OR on multiple index(PK) lookups.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile
>> "sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for
>> PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some prett
As an aside, here is a package that has recently been BSD re-licensed:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libltx/
It is a lightweight memory transaction package. It comes with a paper
entitled "Cache Sensitive Software Transactional Memory" by Robert
Ennals.
In the paper, Robert Ennals suggests th
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> > you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> > no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> > m
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> >Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>My take: we should document this better, but it ain't broke so it
> >>>don't need fixing,
> >>>
> >>Actually, my take on y
Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> machine.
A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others)
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:12:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if you
> teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's no
> guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> machine. We would have to m
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The long history of spinlock issues has recently been attacked
> significantly by Tom, but I wanted to get a status on this issue before
> we release 8.1
I'd still like to do something more with that before we release, but
exactly what is TBD.
> The concl
Please post an explain analyze on your query with a 20-30 item IN clause so that we can see what plan is being generated.
On 10/11/05, Ilia Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When in clause becomes large enough (>20-30 cases),It is much better to use "join" way of processing..I mean,"SELECT * FROM t
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> I notice that the IndexScan code looks up the scan direction each
> invocation by looking up the direction of the plan. Does this mean the
> direction can change in the middle of a scan? Is this how MOVE
> FORWARD/BACKWARD works?
Yes, yes.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andrej Ricnik-Bay
Sent: Mon 10/10/2005 11:34 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] NZ mirror
> Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this, but
> who is looking after the varied mirrors? The NZ mirror
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> That would probably work, but it would ONLY deal with the issue for
> $_TD. In your function $event will still hit this problem.
Well, fixing $_TD would pretty much fix all the problems I've been having.
As far as "$event", that is in my control a
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Actually, my take on your analysis is that there should be a way to get
>>> at "use warnings" (I assume that's disallowed in trusted plperl).
>>
>> Yes, we can't allow "use" in trusted code. But we could turn it on in
>> plperl.c, just as we can turn
When in clause becomes large enough (>20-30 cases),
It is much better to use "join" way of processing..
I mean,
"SELECT * FROM table WHERE field IN (1,2...30)" will be slower than
"SELECT * FROM table JOIN (SRF returning 1...30) USING(field)"
I'm not quite sure, where the difference starts, but
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Hmm...what if we did this?:
Index: plperl.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/pl/plperl/plperl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.92
diff -r1.92 plperl.c
671c671
< XPUSHs(sv_2mortal(newSVpv("my $_
>
> Do other people reach the same conclusions?
>
> Can we make a list of those architectures for which 8.1 is known to
> perform reasonably well, with reasonable SMP scalability? I suggest that
> we record this list somewhere in the release notes, but with a comment
> to say we run on other archit
> Is there a simple, user-accessible mechanism to schedule a function to
> be run at query commit ?
CONSTRAINT TRIGGER (DEFERRABLE)
It is kinda hack, because CONSTRAINT TRIGGERs are not indended for such use,
But there are no other "ON COMMIT" triggers in postgresql.
-
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 19:58 -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
> Of course, there is no reason a relation in a relational class might not be
> huge.
Well, as a designer, I would make it so.
> Orthoganal partion rules would be created for the class. The rules would be
> applied to each member relati
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My take: we should document this better, but it ain't broke so it
don't need fixing,
Actually, my take on your analysis is that there should be a way to get
at "use warnings" (I assume that's disallowed in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
> I don't think it's really a bug - it's a well known perl effect that has
> caught many people over the years, especially unwary users of
> Apache::Registry who fail to recognise that their scrip
The long history of spinlock issues has recently been attacked
significantly by Tom, but I wanted to get a status on this issue before
we release 8.1
My understanding of the problems of spinlocking has been greatly
enhanced by two recent articles:
Linux Journal, discussing linux SMP portability i
Hi,
I notice that the IndexScan code looks up the scan direction each
invocation by looking up the direction of the plan. Does this mean the
direction can change in the middle of a scan? Is this how MOVE
FORWARD/BACKWARD works?
I've traced the code and it *appears* this is what's happening, but c
On E, 2005-10-10 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the past, I've just written a C-based function that calls out to system.
>
> Use pltclu, plpythonu, or plperlu, according to taste. They all have
> pre-existing solutions for this.
>
> Whether
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 15:14 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> We are looking at doing much more with PostgreSQL over the
> next two years, and it seems likely that this issue will come up
> again where it is more of a problem. It sounded like there was
> some agreement on HOW this was to be fixed, ye
> > > > You can do this today using PAM authenication, but this is
> > > not always
> > > > possible. Notably it's never possible on Windows, and there are
> > > > several unix platforms/distros that don't support it
> > > without a lot of
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > Or you port PAM to Windows, and
For implementing "Multi-relation/column keyword indices", which modules
of postgres might be required to change or look into?
BTW anyone has clear idea about "Multi-relation/column keyword indices"?
Cheers,
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you
47 matches
Mail list logo
