AFAIK the wal writer process.
>Um, no. "Synchronous" means that the caller has to wait for the result to
appear before it can move on. "Asynchronous" means that >he caller can issue
the instruction and immediately move on. I guessing here but while usually the
caller would have to provid
thanks for the explanation, Gary.
-
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Unable-to-understand-index-only-scan-as-it-is-not-happening-for-one-table-while-it-happens-for-other-tp5968835p5968976.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing lis
Hi Rajan,
I would say that the optimiser has calculated that it would be quicker to
sequentially read thought the table to get the 354 rows returned without
the limit. By introducing the limit, it is much faster to pick out the
first 10 rows using the index. Using an index is usually only quicke
Thanks.
Now I did the same query, but it is going for *index-only scan* only after I
put *limit*
localdb=# explain analyse verbose select uid from mm where uid>100 order by
uid;
QUERY PLAN
-
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:16:53 -0700 (MST)
DrakoRod wrote:
> Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed
> this:
>
> postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ?00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething
> dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting
> postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ?
On 06/27/2017 04:16 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed
this:
postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ?00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething
dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting
postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ?00:02:47 postgres: dbsome
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 11:19 AM, Daniel Westermann wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Adrian
> > It is clear now for the asynchronous stuff and wal_writer.
> > But I still did not figure out (or I am just not able to understand it
> from the README linked above)
Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed
this:
postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ?00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething
dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting
postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ?00:02:47 postgres: dbsomething
dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49193] PARSE wai
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> *His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections
> are used up.*
> *Hence the need for pg_bouncer for connection pooling.*
>
>
Whether pg_bouncer provides a viable solution is just as big an unknown as
whether "idle
On 06/27/2017 03:41 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Klaver
*His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections
are used up.*
Not following. The 'idle in transaction' queries are coming in through a
connection so having them around is
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:41:25 -0400
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Klaver
> wrote:
>
> > On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks.
> >>
> >> Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version
> >> 9.4.4.9.
> >> The server have m
On 06/27/2017 11:19 AM, Daniel Westermann wrote:
>>On 06/23/2017 05:50 AM, Daniel Westermann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>
> Thanks, Adrian
> It is clear now for the asynchronous stuff and wal_writer.
> But I still did not figure out (or I am just not able to understand it from
> the README linked above)
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
>
>> Hi folks.
>>
>> Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version
>> 9.4.4.9.
>> The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
>> pg_stat_activity and saw 199
On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
Hi folks.
Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9.
The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server
rejected any new connection and th
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
> postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ?00:00:47 postgres: dbname user
> 8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction
>
> Any suggestions?
>
There is a serious lack of information provided here but "idle in
transaction" sessions are generally problematic
> On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, armand pirvu wrote:
>> so how is it working in fact ? Isn't it working like looping in the
>> IVEE.dim_company and for each company_id if the record does have a
>> correspondent in csischema.dim_comp
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, armand pirvu wrote:
> so how is it working in fact ? Isn't it working like looping in the
> IVEE.dim_company and for each company_id if the record does have a
> correspondent in csischema.dim_company then update csischema.dim_company set
> company_name = EXCLUDED
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version
> 9.4.4.9.
> The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
> pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server
> rejected any
Hi folks.
Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9.
The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server
rejected any new connection and the production stopped.
I saw another posts
Hi
Got question
birstdb=# \d csischema.dim_company
Table "csischema.dim_company"
Column |Type | Modifiers
-+-+---
company_id | integer | not null
company_name| ch
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, Daniel Westermann <
daniel.westerm...@dbi-services.com> wrote:
> >On 06/23/2017 05:50 AM, Daniel Westermann wrote:
>
> But I still did not figure out (or I am just not able to understand it from
> the README linked above)
> which process is actually doing the write to t
>On 06/23/2017 05:50 AM, Daniel Westermann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as I did not find the answer in the documentation: Which background
>> process is actually doing the writes/flushes to the WAL? In the docs
>> ( https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/wal-configuration.html ) it is
>> explain
rajan wrote:
> why the index-only scan *works only* with an *order by*?
> localdb=# explain analyse verbose select uid from mm where uid>100 *order
> by* uid;
> QUERY
> PLAN
> ---
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 07:26:08PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alternatively, and ONLY do this if you take a backup right before hand, you
> can set the table unlogged, make the changes and assuming success, make the
> table logged again. That will great increase the write speed and reduce wal
On 06/27/2017 03:11 AM, Swapnil Vaze wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to access few table present in DB2 LUW from postgres9.5
database.
I have installed unixODBC driver and connection to DB2 is working fine.
I have installed CartoDB/odbc_fdw foreign data wrappers.
I have user below commands to creat
Ah! Got it. Thanks. One more question,
why the index-only scan *works only* with an *order by*?
localdb=# explain analyse verbose select uid from mm where uid>100 *order
by* uid;
QUERY
PLAN
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:09 PM, rajan wrote:
> Please help me to understand the following,
>
> *For the following query Index Only Scan to be performance as I am querying
> the indexed fields alone. There are 20 fields in this table, inclusive of
> the three I am selecting.*
> localdb=# explain
On 27/06/2017 13:11, Swapnil Vaze wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to access few table present in DB2 LUW from postgres9.5 database.
I have installed unixODBC driver and connection to DB2 is working fine.
I have installed CartoDB/odbc_fdw foreign data wrappers.
I have user below commands to create for
Please help me to understand the following,
*For the following query Index Only Scan to be performance as I am querying
the indexed fields alone. There are 20 fields in this table, inclusive of
the three I am selecting.*
localdb=# explain analyse verbose select uid, guid from mm where uid=100
limi
Hello,
I am trying to access few table present in DB2 LUW from postgres9.5
database.
I have installed unixODBC driver and connection to DB2 is working fine.
I have installed CartoDB/odbc_fdw foreign data wrappers.
I have user below commands to create foreign table:
$ create extension odbc_fdw;
$
Thank you Adrian, with \sf+ words_skip_game(integer, integer) the line 85
was correct
31 matches
Mail list logo
