Craig,
Is this output correct now?
#define SIZEOF_OFF_T 8
#define SIZEOF_VOID_P 8
#define SIZEOF_SIZE_T 8
#define SIZEOF_LONG 8
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mobile: +972 54 6107703, Office: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mobile: +972 54 6107703, Office: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9 9710222
-Original Message-
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@2ndquadrant.com] /define
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:41 AM
To: Yuri
?
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mobile: +972 54 6107703, Office: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9 9710222
-Original Message-
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: Yuri
Heikki,
I changed postgresql.conf to decrease those parameters but no change:
GMT54000FATAL: requested shared memory size overflows size_t
> My kernel is:
> set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
> set semsys:seminfo_semmni=4096
> set semsys:seminfo_semmns=4096
> set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=4096
> set sems
ff
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=100
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=4096
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100
Config.
shared_buffers = 3GB
temp_buffers = 2GB
work_mem = 1024MB
Sincerely yours,
[Description: Celltick logo_highres]
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 467
n it comes into user's hands. Anyway when you have this option (same
for hash partitioning) you in much better position than you don't have
it. The question is: when we may hope to have it?
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733,
nd
my example about compare with unique b-tree index scan is little bit
extreme. In case you have 2,4,8..1024 different values (not known in
advance) the index might be eliminated. That's whole the feature: no
competition for hash function.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Techno
t you unable to maintain or you don't want to use index like in case
of range partition by time or hash partition: you welcome to use
partitions. You typically don't want to use b-tree index when yo select
more when ~1-2% of your data.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick T
e non unique index with small number of possible values that
you don't know in advance or that changing between your customers. In
that case the hash partition has to be used instead of index.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mo
umnar-oriented
tables, DB freeze for NetApp/EMC snapshots and similar.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mobile: +972 54 6107703, Office: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9 9710222
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:
might be taken as example. Unfortunately I am not writing an
C code and see my benefit to PostgreSQL community in only rising this
issue. I'll be very happy to be helpful in something else, but...
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya
from
such table: each thread might select from his own dedicated partition.
The feature also (mainly) allow to decrease index b-tree level on
partition key column by dividing index into smaller parts.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733
Hi,
Do we have any plans to implement Hash Partitioning, maybe I missing
this feature?
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Levinsky, DBA
Celltick Technologies Ltd., 32 Maskit St., Herzliya 46733, Israel
Mobile: +972 54 6107703, Office: +972 9 9710239; Fax: +972 9 9710222
<>
13 matches
Mail list logo