Two pass will create the count of subfiles proportional to:
Subfile_count = original_stream_size/sort_memory_buffer_size
The merge pass requires (sizeof record * subfile_count) memory.
That is true from an algorithmic perspective. But to make the
merge efficient you would need to have
Hello,
I want do sql wrap for woid plpgsql function. But void SQL function must not
finish SELECT cmd. I don't know any others command which I can use.
Can You help me?
Thank You
Pavel Stehule
_
Najdete si svou lasku a nove
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 09:57:28AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote:
Two pass will create the count of subfiles proportional to:
Subfile_count = original_stream_size/sort_memory_buffer_size
The merge pass requires (sizeof record * subfile_count) memory.
That is true from an
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:34:38PM -0800, Ben Chelf wrote:
On 3/8/06, Josh Berkus josh ( at ) agliodbs ( dot ) com wrote:
Actually, I thougth that Neil/eDB did this with their copy. Is
there any way to get a copy of that training configuration?
Just to jump in on this thread, we
Hi folks,
Please find attached a patch that implements SQL92-compatible updatable
views. The patch introduces new semantics into the rule system: implicit
and explicit rules. Implicit rules are created to implement updatable views:
_INSERT
_NOTHING_INSERT (unconditional DO INSTEAD NOTHING
--On Donnerstag, März 09, 2006 17:23:11 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(BTW, there was some work being done on updatable views, but I think
it's stalled. I suspect the reason is that our current rule system
is just too odd to support updatable views reasonably. I've been
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On 3/9/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Eh? I thought that it was just syntatic sugar that was missing. I've
built lots of updatable views manually; I don't see what's difficult about
it.
I think you'll find that corner cases
--On Freitag, März 10, 2006 09:43:04 + Richard Huxton
dev@archonet.com wrote:
I'd certainly be interested in having auto-updatable views in 8.2 - even
if it was only for the simplest of cases. If I can be of any help testing
etc. let me know.
Yeah, that would be cool. I've sent the
Charlie,
I'm currently working on a similar solution (it's true I'm only in the
thinking phase). I don't have too much time to spend on it (~few hours
per week, on the train during commuting), so it's not progressing too
fast...
Nevertheless, I would like to do a first proof-of-concept version
Bruce Momjian ha scritto:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
Great. I would just like to remind that Tom said:
Two pass will create the count of subfiles proportional to:
Subfile_count = original_stream_size/sort_memory_buffer_size
The merge pass requires (sizeof record * subfile_count) memory.
That is true from an algorithmic perspective. But to make the merge
efficient you would
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOG: begin index sort: unique = f, workMem = 8024000, randomAccess = f
LOG: switching to external sort with 28658 tapes: CPU 4.18s/13.96u sec
elapsed 32.43 sec
LOG: finished writing run 1 to tape 0: CPU 173.56s/3425.85u sec elapsed
3814.82
Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOG: begin index sort: unique = f, workMem = 8024000, randomAccess = f
LOG: switching to external sort with 28658 tapes: CPU 4.18s/13.96u sec
elapsed 32.43 sec
LOG: finished writing run 1 to tape 0: CPU 173.56s/3425.85u sec
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOG: begin index sort: unique = f, workMem = 8024000, randomAccess = f
LOG: switching to external sort with 28658 tapes: CPU 4.18s/13.96u sec
elapsed 32.43 sec
LOG: finished writing run 1
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'll look into it, but I was already wondering if we shouldn't bound the
number of tapes somehow. It's a bit hard to believe that 28000 tapes is
a sane setting.
I thought you had changed the memory
I'll look into it, but I was already wondering if we shouldn't bound
the number of tapes somehow. It's a bit hard to believe that 28000
tapes is a sane setting.
Well, since they are not actually tapes, why not?
I wonder what the OS does when we repeatedly open and close those files
On 3/10/2006 10:53 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 3/8/2006 5:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Remove Christof Petig copyright on include file, per author request.
Huh, I thought what he actually told was
Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll look into it, but I was already wondering if we shouldn't bound
the number of tapes somehow. It's a bit hard to believe that 28000
tapes is a sane setting.
Well, since they are not actually tapes, why not?
I wonder what the OS
Hi all!
During my testing of large work_mem and maintainence_work_mem setting
wrt to CREATE INDEX and sorting I encountered a number of things wrt to
doing various operations on such a large table (about 106GB on disk with
no dead tuples).
I will summarize some of the just in case somebody is
Alvaro,
Thanks for the pointers. I'm looking forward to finding somebody who
wants to sponsor me on this issue ... or maybe get me a passport from
the Holy See.
The other pointy bit is that the letter of invitation needs to
indicate the inviter's relationship to the person being invited.
Stefan,
On 3/10/06 9:40 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will summarize some of the just in case somebody is interested:
I am!
- table used has 5 integer columns non-indexed during the loads
- hardware is a Dual Opteron 280 with 4 [EMAIL PROTECTED],4GHz and 16GB RAM,
On Friday 10 March 2006 07:53, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 3/8/2006 5:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Remove Christof Petig copyright on include file, per author request.
Huh, I thought what he
Just curious, but how do ppl come to Canada as tourists from other
countries? I don't imagine they need to be invited by a Canadian, do
they?
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
Alvaro,
Thanks for the pointers. I'm looking forward to finding somebody who
wants to sponsor me on this
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Stefan,
On 3/10/06 9:40 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will summarize some of the just in case somebody is interested:
I am!
heh - not surprised :-)
- table used has 5 integer columns non-indexed during the loads
- hardware is a Dual
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3. vacuuming this table - it turned out that VACUUM FULL is completly
unusable on a table(which i actually expected before) of this size not
only to the locking involved but rather due to a gigantic memory
requirement and unbelievable slowness.
Stefan,
On 3/10/06 11:48 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 HBAs in the server, 2x2 possible paths to each LUN.
6 disks for the WAL and 12 disks for the data
So - you have 18 disks worth of potential bandwidth, not factoring loss due
to RAID. That's roughly 18 * 60 = 1,080
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
samples %symbol name
350318533 98.8618 mergepreread
9718220.2743 tuplesort_gettuple_common
4136740.1167 tuplesort_heap_siftup
I don't have enough memory to really reproduce this, but I've come close
enough that I believe I see
On Mar 10, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3. vacuuming this table - it turned out that VACUUM FULL is
completly
unusable on a table(which i actually expected before) of this
size not
only to the locking involved but rather due to a
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Stefan,
On 3/10/06 11:48 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 HBAs in the server, 2x2 possible paths to each LUN.
6 disks for the WAL and 12 disks for the data
So - you have 18 disks worth of potential bandwidth, not factoring loss due
to RAID.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
2) For my comprehension, what's the difference between a SYNONYM and a
single-object (possibly updatable) view?
Not a whole lot actually. If we had updateable views, I'd suggest that
people change their create synonym syntax to create view.
One
Stefan,
On 3/10/06 12:23 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrong(or rather extremely optimistic) the array itself only has two
(redundant) FC-loops(@2GB )to the attached expansion chassis. The array
has 2 active/active controllers (with a failover penalty) with two host
Matteo Beccati wrote:
Bruce Momjian ha scritto:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
Great. I would just
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One key difference would be that synonyms track schema updates, like
adding a column, to the referenced object that a view would not.
That raises a fairly interesting point, actually. What would you expect
to happen here:
CREATE TABLE foo ...;
On fös, 2006-03-10 at 16:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One key difference would be that synonyms track schema updates, like
adding a column, to the referenced object that a view would not.
That raises a fairly interesting point, actually. What would you
I wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
samples %symbol name
350318533 98.8618 mergepreread
9718220.2743 tuplesort_gettuple_common
4136740.1167 tuplesort_heap_siftup
I don't have enough memory to really reproduce this, but I've come close
enough that I
Hi,
i am trying to download the windows version since 3 hours ago and just
get an error page no matters if i try the FTP browser, ftp mirrors or
bittorrent
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
What they (MySQL) lose in usability, they gain back in benchmarks, and that's
all that matters: getting the
fixing some typos, sorry is late...
i am trying to download the windows version since 3 hours ago and just
get an error page no matters if i try the FTP browser, ftp mirrors or
bittorrent
MOre on this, i was able to download from bittorrent when i manually
paste the url and remove the
37 matches
Mail list logo
