"Alexei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although the result
> of the query always was correct whichever plan it's using. I repete - I did
> not do anything between queries, but just ran the same 'explain select ...'
> sequentially. The query itself is heavy, but pretty strightforward - 2
> tabl
KLEBER SILVA wrote:
Hello to all,
Gentlemen,
I have a doubt with relation to the number of
connections that the Bank of Dados (POSTGRESQL)
supports in a machine "Pentium III with 256 MB
Memory", could help me?
It depends...
How big are the data sets being accessed by the queries? How
Hello to all,
Gentlemen,
I have a doubt with relation to the number of
connections that the Bank of Dados (POSTGRESQL)
supports in a machine "Pentium III with 256 MB
Memory", could help me?
Thank all,
Kleber
"PostgreSQL the best data base of all the times..."
by Kleber.
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1878
Logged by: Alexei
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0
Operating system: Windows 2000
Description:Different execution plans for the same query.
Details:
I was doing performance evaluat
Arjen van der Meijden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It had taken over 800MB of memory. The machine is a P4 3.0 Ghz (with HT
> enabled), 1GB of memory a few SATA disks and runs with a recent Gentoo +
> 2.6.12.5 kernel.
> The postgresql version that failed was 8.0.3, it may or may not be worth
> k
We are working in a rather complex environment,
where COBOL/SQL on a legacy
mainframe has its SQL portions sent
via a high speed link to a Unix box.
The SQL is translated to a C/SQL environment
in the process and the Postgres
ECPG preprocessor is used on the Unix
side for interfacing with Postg
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:31AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This would allow current behavior to be supported by ECPG and the Postgres
> server,
> but allow applications that need the behavior (like a Cobol/SQL
> preprocessor for Postgres),
> to make use of it.
Which preprocessor are yo
Angelo Neuschitzer wrote:
In my Program there were 3 blocks of inserting done in a row. 5
blocks of
insterting per call.
first block insterted 93 rows (in table A)
second instered 82 rows (in table B)
third 2 (in table C)
fourth 9 (in table D)
[whereas Tables B,C and D have a reference on Tabl
