Re: [GENERAL] PgInstallerfor 8.1 beta 3 missing Postgis?

2005-10-22 Thread Magnus Hagander
> Magnus, > I have replied to general as well as the only mailing list I > could find on PG Foundry for pginstaller was the Devel list. > > I actually do have all those files - the trouble is that the > name changes make pg_restore fail on a dump from a 8.0.3 > Database with spatial (postgis) t

[GENERAL] pg_dump with low priority?

2005-10-22 Thread Bryan Field-Elliot
We have a huge database which must be backed up every day with pg_dump. The problem is, it takes around half an hour to produce the dump file, and all other processes on the same box are starved for cycles (presumably due to I/O) during the dump. It's not just an inconvenience, it's now evolved

Re: [GENERAL] PgInstallerfor 8.1 beta 3 missing Postgis?

2005-10-22 Thread Johan Wehtje
Magnus, Well I checked out with the PostGIS people and their advice was that if you are restoring Postgis Databases you need Perl installed so that the restore.pl script can be run. This affects any upgrade from 0.9 or lower versions of PostGIS to 1.0 or higher. Given the other changes betwee

Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump with low priority?

2005-10-22 Thread Andreas Kretschmer
Bryan Field-Elliot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Is there any mechanism for running pg_dump with a lower priority? I don't mind > if the backup takes two hours instead of half an hour, as long as other > processes were getting their fair share of cycles. You can use 'nice', see see the man-page.

Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump with low priority?

2005-10-22 Thread Douglas McNaught
Bryan Field-Elliot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have a huge database which must be backed up every day with pg_dump. > The problem is, it takes around half an hour to produce the dump file, and > all other processes on the same box are starved for cycles (presumably due > to I/O) during the du

Re: [GENERAL] How much slower are numerics?

2005-10-22 Thread Jon Lapham
Tom Lane wrote: On modern hardware, I'd expect float operations to be at least an order of magnitude faster than numerics [snip] regression$# declare x float8 := 0; regression=# select timeit(100); Time: 13700.960 ms > [snip] regression$# declare x numeric := 0; regression=# select timeit(1

[GENERAL] Large Table Performance

2005-10-22 Thread David Busby
List, I've got a problem where I need to make a table that is going to grow by an average of 230,000 records per day. There are only 20 columns in the table, mostly char and integer. It's FK'd in two places to another table for import/export transaction id's and I have a serial primary key an

Re: [GENERAL] How much slower are numerics?

2005-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> On modern hardware, I'd expect float operations to be at least an order >> of magnitude faster than numerics > But, this is less than a factor of 2 difference, similar to what one of > the previous INSERT examples showed. Or am I missin

Re: [GENERAL] How to cluster Postgresql

2005-10-22 Thread Franck Coppola
Hi, Replying to all the questions at once : - The application was developped in PHP. It's mostly a B2B application for exchanging digital content (video) over the internet. Since we also provide some hosted scripts for the customer oriented websites using our plateform, there are a lot of req

[GENERAL] out of memory for query result

2005-10-22 Thread Allen
I am trying to select a result set from a 2-table join, which should be returning 5,045,358 rows. I receive this error: DBD::Pg::st execute failed: out of memory for query result I am using Perl with DBI cursor (so i think) to retreive the data (prepare, execute, fetchrow_hashref, ..., fi

Re: [GENERAL] out of memory for query result

2005-10-22 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:46:18PM -0400, Allen wrote: > I am trying to select a result set from a 2-table join, which should be > returning 5,045,358 rows. I receive this error: > > DBD::Pg::st execute failed: out of memory for query result AFAIK, DBD:Pg never uses a cursor unless you ask i

[GENERAL] Transaction IDs not the same in same transaction?

2005-10-22 Thread Steve V
So I was finally able to get a compiled binary for the code in this thread(thanks Magnus): http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-06/msg00709.php So everything seemed to be fine with my GetCurrentTransactionID() function call returning the txn ID for each query I would run(as far as I c

[GENERAL] pg_autovacuum (8.0.4) as Windows service ?

2005-10-22 Thread Zlatko Matić
When installing pg_autovacuum as Windows service, should user that makes connection be the service account or a superuser ? For example, I have service account "postgres_service" and database superuser "postgres". Which one should be used in following script: @echo off set TARGET_DISC=C:echo

[GENERAL] Ann: PgBrowser-1.1

2005-10-22 Thread Jerry LeVan
PgBrowse ver 1.1 is a generic Postgresql database browser that works on Windows, Macintosh and Linux platforms that is written in Tcl/Tk. A couple of features that help differentiate this (free) product. 1) No postresql software is actually needed on the client. ( but both functionality and spee

Re: [GENERAL] Transaction IDs not the same in same transaction?

2005-10-22 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 01:30:32PM -0700, Steve V wrote: > So I was finally able to get a compiled binary for the code in this > thread(thanks Magnus): > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-06/msg00709.php > > So everything seemed to be fine with my GetCurrentTransactionID() > functi

Re: [GENERAL] Transaction IDs not the same in same transaction?

2005-10-22 Thread Steve V
On 10/22/05, Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It makes sense if you're running PostgreSQL 8.0 or later and are > using subtransactions, whether explicitly or implicitly. The example > you posted didn't show the trigger definition or function -- does > the function do any error trapping?

Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase

2005-10-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:07:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yep. It is not just limited to empty strings; An all blank string, no > matter the number of characters, is stored as NULL. And a corollary to > that idiocy is that a string with two blank characters is not equal to a > strin