Mark, thanks for sharing these results with us. Interesting. PG is
definitely slower, but not overwhelmingly slower.
I wonder how different the result would be if you had a huge amount of
RAM and allocated PG enough buffers to keep the entire table in RAM.
That would take OS IO considerations
> > I tried this query :
> >
> > SELECT sum(val) FROM fact0
> >
> > for Postgres, Db2 and Oracle. The results were
> >
> > Postgres2m25s
> > Db2 40s
> > Oracle 50s
> >
> > This seems to be the likely culprit. I suspect that the "many
> > block/page read at once" type optimzations
"Dr. Evil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> anyway, the problem is that VARSIZE is no longer defined in a way that
> I can make assignments to in 7.1. Does anyone have any sugestions?
Use VARATT_SIZEP.
src/backend/utils/adt/ is a rich source of examples to follow when you
have questions like this
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, IRWIN,KEITH (Non-HP-Corvallis,ex1) wrote:
> Hi--
>
> I'm getting the following error:
>
> ERROR: Relation "accounts" with OID 72496 no longer exists
>
> What I did was to drop a couple of columns using the example Bruce
> provides in his book on page 264. Briefly,
I have a function like this:
VARSIZE(result) = result_size - 1;
sha1_init(C);
sha1_write(C, VARDATA(arg), VARSIZE(arg)-VARHDRSZ);
anyway, the problem is that VARSIZE is no longer defined in a way that
I can make assignments to in 7.1. Does anyone have any sugestions?
Also, if there is an
"Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another minor issue that has come to my attention is that when I define
> shared_buffers=4
> I assume that it'll need a shm segment of 4*8192=32768 bytes
> And so I set /proc/sys/kernel/shmall and shmmax accordingly only to find o
We have a need to replicate a Microsoft SQL server out to a PostgreSQL
server. Pretty much, the client uses SQL server right now, and we don't
want to expose that to the internet in any way, so we want to set up a
Postgres box with the same data at the colo facility. Also helps to have a
box you c
We used NCurses and libpq to write our own character-based front-end. Of
course, that still left a whole lot of work to be done :-(
Tim
- Original Message -
From: "Marcelo Pereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:46 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] Languag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
> Couldn't you create an INSERT rule on pg_password for the
> junior-superuser that narrowed the created users to only sensible
> permissions?
Obviously, if we invented a "create users" permission, it would have to
extend only to creating non-superus
Hi--
I'm getting the following error:
ERROR: Relation "accounts" with OID 72496 no longer exists
What I did was to drop a couple of columns using the example Bruce
provides in his book on page 264. Briefly, it's something like:
create table temp as select * from accounts;
Another minor issue that has come to my attention is that when I define
shared_buffers=4
I assume that it'll need a shm segment of 4*8192=32768 bytes
And so I set /proc/sys/kernel/shmall and shmmax accordingly only to find out that
postmaster failes to start because it requests a shms
Tom Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However it looks like to give those folks user creation rights, they
> would become super users and be able to access other departments'
> databases. Is there a way for a user to get user creation rights only
> for their database and not get superuser rig
"Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see in postgresql.conf what seems to be the suggested way to go:
> #shared_buffers = 2*max_connections # min 16
That's a *minimum allowed* value intended to ensure that you won't see
"out of buffers" failures. In practice, on any reasonab
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oleg announced the new intarray in this message:
> http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=120655 and there was
> discussion following. But I don't see this version in CURRENT CVS???
I believe the state of play is that we have some catalog-changing w
Okay, I have found an old posting from Tom about setBytes that
said you had to use explicit begin and ends. So I started
sending explicit "BEGIN" and "COMMIT" statements to the backend
and it worked.
But why do you have to use explicit BEGIN and COMMIT statements
if you have autocommit turned of
I'm using the JDBC driver 7.1. I'm trying to write data into
prepared statements using InputStreams. When I use the sample
program with a simple example, it works great. When I use the
'real world' code, I get the above error.
Are there any known flaws or exceptions in the 7.1 JDBC driver tha
Justin Clift wrote:
>
> Did you get any feedback on this? :-)
Unfortunately not, but I live in hope. [If you live in Hope, you'll die
in Caergwrle]. I can afford very little time to play with it at present,
however I'll come back to it as soon as I can since one of our ongoing
issues is trying t
I see in postgresql.conf what seems to be the suggested way to go:
#shared_buffers = 2*max_connections # min 16
This seems to imply that every connection is to take 16kb of shmem on average. From my
understanding this depends on the size of the query->involved relations, the sort_mem
size etc.
Hi There,
I'm a PostgreSQL developer, and I use to access the databases from PHP
scripts, almost everything is on PHP, but right now I have to bring up some
'diskless stations', these computers are going to be used to query the
database, like kiosks.
So, unfortunately, theses computers doesn't s
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Hm. The theory about simple sequential reads is that we expect the
> >> kernel to optimize the disk access, since it'll recognize that we are
> >> doing sequential access to the table file and do read-aheads. Or that's
> >> the theory, anyway.
>
"Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x4014d8e0 in ?? ()
> #1 0x8123a52 in ?? ()
> #2 0x8123a9f in ?? ()
> #3 0x8123caa in ?? ()
> [ etc ]
Sigh, that's no help at all :-(. Looks like you are using a postgres
executable that's been stripped of all symbolic information
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 20 July 2001 11:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Let me add that Red Hat is now distributing a different RPM with their
> > Red Hat Database, or at least I think they are. Can someone confirm?
>
> Trond may be able to.
The rpms of the Red Hat data
"Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hints what's wrong?
Nothing. If you look closely, the abstime test is comparing 'current'
against '30 June 2001'. This Y2K+18months bogosity escaped notice until
this month :-(
regards, tom lane
--
Hello all,
I've looked at the mailing list archives but didn't see anything related
to my question. Last night at our LUG meeting I gave a brief talk on
how we use PostgreSQL for our clients. Afterward I was asked a question
that I couldn't answer. So I was hoping someone here could answer o
Jakub Ouhrabka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i observed strange behavior using hash index. is it a known bug?
No, not a *known* bug. Your message does not give sufficient info to
try to reproduce the problem, however. Could you try to come up with
a self-contained example?
Hmm, unfortunate (was hoping that only the bottom of the trace
was only addresses). Can you turn on --enable-debug (from configure),
recompile, and see if it crashes then and what the trace is from that?
I think that'd be sufficient in general to get routine names (if I'm
wrong, I'm sure Tom wil
On Friday 20 July 2001 10:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
> > ISTM that it'd be a good thing if current versions of all the add-on
> > source files for both Debian and RedHat RPMs were part of our CVS tree
> If you want to take the job of keeping these up to date or the job of
> co
> On Saturday 14 July 2001 02:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It would seem that Oracle's execution plan is more optimal.
> >
> > Hmm, since I don't know the details of Oracle's plan displays, it's hard
> > to comment on that --- but it looks to me like the plans are essentially
> > the same, w
> Deja vu... didn't we have this discussion a month or two back?? :-) (
> http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=115437#thread )
>
> I'm all for it for the RPM's, at least, if others are game. We left off with
> the question of where it would best be stored
>
> There is, in fact, an
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > ISTM that it'd be a good thing if current versions of all the add-on
> > source files for both Debian and RedHat RPMs were part of our CVS tree
>
> If you want to take the job of keeping these up to date or the job of
> convincing all the 143 package developers out there
Trying a new 7.1.2 installation when running gmake check I get a failure at the
abstime test. The regression.diffs file contains the following:
*** ./expected/abstime.out Thu May 3 15:00:37 2001
--- ./results/abstime.out Fri Jul 20 11:12:54 2001
***
*** 47,56
Jakub Ouhrabka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and i can see some other strange things with hash indexes in other tables.
> is it possible that i'm using hash indexes in a bad way? or is it because
> of using multiple indexes on one column?
It's my understanding that the hash index code isn't main
32 matches
Mail list logo
