Re: [HACKERS] Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation)

2012-07-24 Thread karavelov
o the power supply of another machine and randomly cycling the power. These days most of the server class hardware could be power-cycled with IPMI command. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] libpq URL syntax vs SQLAlchemy

2012-05-14 Thread karavelov
d be confused with the host part of the URI (the part between // and /). Why do not call it "path" ? So it will become: postgres:///db?path=/path/to/socket/dir Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] Initial 9.2 pgbench write results

2012-02-28 Thread karavelov
- what do you have in mind? > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] swapcache-style cache?

2012-02-28 Thread karavelov
ave tested also writeback mode but the gain is not so huge and there is a considerable risk for loosing all your data if/when the SSD fails. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] TS: Limited cover density ranking

2012-01-28 Thread karavelov
LECT tsvec @@ '(a ? b ? c) | (a ? c ? b) | (b ? a ? c) | (b ? c ? a) | (c ? a ? b) | (c ? b ? a)'::tsquery; is the same as SELECT ts_rank_lcd(tsvec, 'a&b&c'::tsquery,2)>0; So this is the reason to think that the general approach does not exclude the the usefulness of the approach that I am proposing. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] TS: Limited cover density ranking

2012-01-27 Thread karavelov
E vec @@ query AND ts_rank_cd(2,vec,query)>0; The catch is that it will match also 'b d c', 'd c b', 'd b c', 'c d b' and 'd b d', so it is not a replacement for exact phrase match but something that I find useful -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] TS: Limited cover density ranking

2012-01-27 Thread karavelov
If there is an alternative, I am open to suggestions Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] TS: Limited cover density ranking

2012-01-27 Thread karavelov
And here is the patch, that I forgot to attach > Hello, > > I have developed a variation of cover density ranking functions that counts > only covers that are lesser than a specified limit. It is useful for finding > combinations of terms that appear nearby one another. Here is an example of >

[HACKERS] TS: Limited cover density ranking

2012-01-27 Thread karavelov
e an independent extension. 2. If I run the patched version on cluster that was initialized with unpatched server, is there a way to register the new functions in the system catalog without reinitializing the cluster? Best regards luben -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-02 Thread karavelov
in the IP network stack of any device. Eg. you could not configure route as 10.0.0.2-10.0.0.6 3. No IPv6 support. So, from my viewpoint the "semantic overloading" of inet type is what you want because it represents the semantics of IP networks. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread karavelov
gt; I have reached one or two times to use build-in inet/cidr types but the lack of indexing support for "contains op" was stopping me - i have used ip4r extension. I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as semantic change that will break backward compatibility. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

2011-10-22 Thread karavelov
er than scan ordered by the hash value of the key. And this is overhead only of CPU cache lines - the numbers of instructions executed on the processor are pretty much the same (counted by valgrind). So I do think that if we have sequential scan of indexes (physical order) it will help even when all the data is in the buffercache. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

2011-09-20 Thread karavelov
19 seconds On server hardware: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz gcc version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5-8) /a.out C stdlib quick-sort time elapsed: 2.610150 seconds Inline quick-sort time elapsed: 1.494198 seconds All -O2 version show 42% speedup with inlined qsort. -O0 showed 25% speedup. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] cheaper snapshots

2011-07-28 Thread karavelov
h their idea of backend do not maps exactly to postgrsql's idea. The closest thing is per session async commit: ALTER SESSION SET COMMIT_WRITE='NOWAIT'; Best regards -- Luben Karavelov

Re: [HACKERS] FWD: fastlock+lazyvzid patch performance

2011-06-24 Thread karavelov
- Цитат от Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com), на 25.06.2011 в 00:16 - > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM, wrote: >> clients beta2 +fastlock +lazyvzid local socket >> 8 76064 92430 92198 106734 >> 16 64254 90788 90698 105097 >> 32 56629 88189 88269 101202 >> 64 51124 84354 84639 96362 >>

[HACKERS] FWD: fastlock+lazyvzid patch performance

2011-06-24 Thread karavelov
improve peak performance but also improve the performance under load - without patches the performance with 256 clients is 53% of the peak performance that is obtained with 8 clients, with patches the performance with 256 client is 79% of the peak with 8 clients. Best regards Luben Karavelov P.S