On Tuesday 16 March 2004 00:08, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to suspect an issue with foreign-key checking. You didn't
give us any details about foreign key relationships your cust table is
involved in --- could we see those? And the schemas of the other tables
involved?
Two questions Tom:
The problem with Jan's more complex version of the patch (at least the
one I found - perhaps not the right one) is it includes a bunch of other
experimental stuff that I'd not want to mess with at the moment. Would
changing the input units (for the original patch) from milli-secs to
Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to this sooner.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:38:37PM -0800, Joe Conway wrote:
The problem is this: the application runs an insert, that fires off a
trigger, that cascades into a fairly complex series of functions, that
do a bunch of calculations, inserts,
while you weren't looking, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. It looks like you mistakenly traced psql rather than the backend,
but since the delay went away we wouldn't have learned
anything anyhow.
Have you got any idea what conditions may have changed between seeing
delay and not seeing delay?
None,
Rosser Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
while you weren't looking, Tom Lane wrote:
Have you got any idea what conditions may have changed between seeing
delay and not seeing delay?
None, offhand. I have noticed that when a large query is running,
the machine can sporadically just
I wrote:
Regardless, something thinks it's still there. Is there any way that
it is, and that I've somehow been running 7.3.2 all along? `which
psql`, c show the bindir from my configure, but I'm not sure that's
sufficient.
The weird thing is that I know I never built 7.3.anything with 32K
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The vacuum delay stuff that you're working on may help, but I can't
really believe it's your salvation if this is happening after only a
few minutes. No matter how much you're doing inside those functions,
you surely can't be causing so many dead tuples that a vacuum is
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:52, Seum-Lim Gan wrote:
Hi all,
we have a question about the pagesize in PostgreSQL:
Using different pagesizes: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, when we store different
record sizes
such as in the following example:
CREATE TABLE TEST_1 (
F1 VARCHAR(10),
F2 VARCHAR(5) );
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Seum-Lim Gan wrote:
we have a question about the pagesize in PostgreSQL:
Using different pagesizes: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, when we store different
record sizes
such as in the following example:
CREATE TABLE TEST_1 (
F1 VARCHAR(10),
F2 VARCHAR(5) );
CREATE TABLE TEST_2 (
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Eric Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ planning a 9-table query takes too long ]
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/explicit-joins.html
for some useful tips.
Is this the best answer we've got? For me
10 matches
Mail list logo
