Hi,
Here are some initial numbers.
DB::Client
Warming up --
db-postgres 281.000 i/100ms
db-mariadb 399.000 i/100ms
mysql2 533.000 i/100ms
pg 591.000 i/100ms
Calculating -
Thank you. That solved the problem.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:24 PM Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 7/3/20 7:21 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On 7/3/20 4:37 AM, Praveen Kumar K S wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> PostgreSQL libraries are required while compiling pgpool. I need to
> >> install postgresql-libs
On 7/6/20 7:06 PM, Paul McGarry wrote:
I have two sequences in different dbs which I want to keep roughly in
sync (they don't have to be exactly in sync, I am just keeping them in
the same ballpark).
Currently I have a process which periodically checks the sequences and does:
1) Check values
I have two sequences in different dbs which I want to keep roughly in sync
(they don't have to be exactly in sync, I am just keeping them in the same
ballpark).
Currently I have a process which periodically checks the sequences and does:
1) Check values
DB1sequence: 1234
DB2sequence: 1233 (1 behi
Hi Michael,
I simplified the real query before posting it here and I now realize that I
oversimplified things.
Unfortunately the real query cannot be re-written with a group by.
Some of the window functions are more complex with order by clause using
complex expressions involving multiple column
On Monday, July 6, 2020, Sebastien Arod wrote:
> I would have expected postgresql to "share" a preliminary sort on c1 that
> would then be useful to reduce the work on all window functions but it
> doesn't.
>
The plan shown does share - the output of one sort goes into another.
Subsequent sorts
On Monday, July 6, 2020, Michael Lewis wrote:
> Did you say you have an index on c1?
> [...]
> I don't know the data, but I assume there may be many rows with the same
> c1 value, so then you would likely benefit from getting that distinct set
> first like below as your FROM table.
>
Re-reading
Distinct is a great way to get quick results when writing quick &
dirty queries, but I rarely have them perform better than a re-write that
avoids the need. It collects a ton of results, orders them, and throws away
duplicates in the process. I don't love the idea of that extra work. Did
you say yo
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 09:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 21:49, David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>> >> (SELECT 1 FROM pg_class) UNION (SELECT 1 FROM pg_class);
>> >> vs.
>> >>
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 21:49, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be
> possible to
> >> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get go
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>
>>
>> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible to
>> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
>> understanding,
>> or somethin
Does this give the same result and do the optimization you want?
select
c1,
min(c2) AS c2,
min(c3) AS c3,
min(c4) AS c4
from
t
group by
c1;
>
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:37 AM Robins Tharakan wrote:
> This need came up while reviewing generated SQL, where the need was to
> return true when
> at least one of two lists had a row.
>
Generated SQL... yep. That will happen. Manual SQL may be more work, but
often has significant reward.
If yo
Hi all,
I'm trying to optimize the following query on postgres 11.6 (running on
Aurora)
select distinct
c1,
first_value(c2) OVER (PARTITION BY c1 order by c2) AS c2,
first_value(c3) OVER (PARTITION BY c1 order by c3) AS c3,
first_value(c4) OVER (PARTITION BY c1 order by c4) AS c4
from
t;
Hi,
We're wondering why pgbench behaves this way by default:
"With neither -n nor -v,
pgbench will vacuum the pgbench_tellers and pgbench_branches tables, and
will truncate pgbench_history."
Why pgbench_accounts not vacuumed by default?
I've dug the history of pgbench until 1999. The vaccum of
t
Try Replacing hostname by hostname/Database?
Don’t Forget ?
Regards
PAscal
--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html
On 7/6/20 2:43 AM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
Hello,
Me and my team passed a full weekend hunting a bug in our Perl written
software were rows have been inserted with the same id 'acq_haushalt.hnr'
which should not have been the case because any budget year in that
table has a single internal number
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 09:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Niels Jespersen writes:
> > Sorry, "way to provide a default username" should have been "way to
> provide a default databasename"
>
> Not sure, but you'd be more likely to find a knowledgeable answer
> on the pgsql-jdbc list.
>
>
Same way, in the pr
Niels Jespersen writes:
> Sorry, "way to provide a default username" should have been "way to provide a
> default databasename"
Not sure, but you'd be more likely to find a knowledgeable answer
on the pgsql-jdbc list.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible
> to
> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
> understanding,
> or something already discussed but rejected for some reason?
>
> This
El día Montag, Juli 06, 2020 a las 01:58:04 +0200, Sándor Daku escribió:
> > We update the serial 'acq_haushalt_hnr_seq' with this statement after
> > loading:
> >
>
> What does "loading" mean, and why do you reset the sequence after loading?
> (And as I can see you setting it to the value it mos
Robins:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Robins Tharakan wrote:
> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible to
> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
> understanding,
> or something already discussed but rejected for some reason?
Hi Matthias,
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 11:43, Matthias Apitz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Me and my team passed a full weekend hunting a bug in our Perl written
> software were rows have been inserted with the same id 'acq_haushalt.hnr'
> which should not have been the case because any budget year in that
Hi,
When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible
to
implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
understanding,
or something already discussed but rejected for some reason?
This need came up while reviewing generated SQL, where the need was
Sorry, "way to provide a default username" should have been "way to provide a
default databasename"
Fra: Niels Jespersen
Sendt: 6. juli 2020 13:20
Til: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Emne: Using Postgres jdbc driver with Oracle SQL Developer
Hello all
Oracle SQL Developer allows you to add
Hello all
Oracle SQL Developer allows you to add what they call a Third Party JDBC
Driver. With that you can connect and use SQL Developer against Postgres. So
far, so good. But when you connect, there is a button "Choose database" that
fills a dropdown box with databasenames available on the c
Hello,
Me and my team passed a full weekend hunting a bug in our Perl written
software were rows have been inserted with the same id 'acq_haushalt.hnr'
which should not have been the case because any budget year in that
table has a single internal number 'hnr'
The table in the 11.4 server is cr
On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 12:46 -0500, Ron wrote:
> > This is my favorite example why I like the way PostgreSQL does things:
> >
> > /* poor man's VACUUM (FULL) */
> > BEGIN;
> > CREATTE TABLE t2 AS SELECT * FROM t1;
> > DROP TABLE t1;
> > ALTER TABLE t2 RENAME TO t1;
> > COMMIT;
>
> How so, since it
28 matches
Mail list logo
