On Thursday 19 July 2007 00:03:19 Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> I'll post my solution ... when I figure one out!
You could, in the script from cron:
1 - check for the presence of rows in a 'alive_scripts_table'
if any , then exit, and go for the next run,
alternativly, check that pid in 'ps -ef
Hi,
Le mercredi 18 juillet 2007, Jonah H. Harris a écrit :
> On 7/18/07, Benjamin Arai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I want to parrallelize searches if possible to reduce
> > the perofrmance loss of having multiple tables.
>
> PostgreSQL does not support parallel query. Parallel query on top
Hi Richard,
On Jul 19, 2007, at 12:49 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
Steve Spicklemire wrote:
I also have a function "get_cem_for_directBurial(personid)" that
is expensive to call, but it's also indexed, so I hoped that the
index would normally be used (essentially as a cache). It returns
a 'c
I'm developing a program in C that acquires data from an I/O card and
stores values in postgresql.
I noticed that the program uses more and more ram, so I decided to debug
it with valgrind, and I found
==28449== 156 (36 direct, 120 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
lost in loss record 2
Steve Spicklemire wrote:
Here is the function body... the data is stored in and XML "pickle". I
had hoped that it would only be called in building the index.
Since the query uses it in the 'filter' step.. I'm not sure if it's
using the index or not.
Does marking the function immutable hel
Basic query optimization question- does Postgres process
x IN (y1, y2)
as fast as
(x = y1 OR x = y2)
in a function?
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 Tom Lane's cat, walking on the keyboard, wrote:
> "jungmin shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As I see the documentation of postgres, postgres use genetic algorithm
> > for query optimization rather than system R optimizer. right?
>
> Only for queries with more than geqo
Ottavio Campana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =3D=3D28449=3D=3D 156 (36 direct, 120 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are def=
> initely
> lost in loss record 2 of 8
> =3D=3D28449=3D=3Dat 0x402137E: malloc (in
> /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so)
> =3D=3D28449=3D=3Dby 0x4154799: (
Dimitri,
> Seems to me that :
> - GreenPlum provides some commercial parallel query engine on top of
>PostgreSQL,
I certainly think so and so do our customers in production with 100s of
terabytes :-)
> - plproxy could be a solution to the given problem.
>https://developer.skype.com/
Luca Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to better understand how the optimizer works and is implemented. Is
> there any available documentation (before start reading the source!) to
> understand concepts about geqo and system r? Any chance about any demo or
> presentation with detail
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
The developers section of the website used to have slides from a couple
of talks I gave at OSCON, but I don't see them there anymore :-(
This one is still around:
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/presentations/os2003/lane_tom.pdf
I'd also recommend http:/
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:41:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luca Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd like to better understand how the optimizer works and is implemented.
> > Is
> > there any available documentation (before start reading the source!) to
> > understand concepts about geqo
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:41:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The developers section of the website used to have slides from a couple
>> of talks I gave at OSCON, but I don't see them there anymore :-(
> How long ago was this (that they were on the webs
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:41:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The developers section of the website used to have slides from a couple
> > of talks I gave at OSCON, but I don't see them there anymore :-(
>
> How long ago was this (that they were on the website)? I don't re
I am being asked by management when PostgreSQL 8.3 will become generally
available. Is there an updated timeline for 8.3?
Thanks,
Keaton
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Pat Maddox wrote:
The machine in question is a 2.4 Ghz Xeon with 2 gigs of ram running
freebsd 6.2 and postgres 8.2. There are 16 concurrent users. This
machine is used only for the database. Usage is split out pretty evenly
between reads and writes.
If you're running
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 05:52:30AM -0700, Paul Codler wrote:
> Basic query optimization question- does Postgres process
>
>x IN (y1, y2)
> as fast as
>(x = y1 OR x = y2)
>
> in a function?
EXPLAIN indicates this.
Peter
---(end of broadcast)---
On 7/6/07, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Kynn Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi! I am in the process of writing a PostgreSQL lexer/parser in Perl,
> because everything else I've found in this area is too buggy. I'm
> basing this lexer/parser on the lexer and parser encoded resp
Hi,
We're using postgres on a server where everything is automated, no human
interaction save a web interface.
I have an issue where a post-install script tries to create a database,
and in 1 out of 10 cases I get this:
"createdb: database creation failed: ERROR: source database "template1"
is
"Michael P. Soulier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have an issue where a post-install script tries to create a database,
> and in 1 out of 10 cases I get this:
> "createdb: database creation failed: ERROR: source database "template1"
> is being accessed by other users"
Try inserting a short sle
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Try inserting a short sleep before the createdb.
Oh, so I'd be working around a known race condition? Is there a bug open?
> For 8.3 we have
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-06/msg00013.php
Ok, thanks.
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 6
Not sure, but sounds like a max user connections is preventing successive
connections?
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
Hi,
We're using postgres on a server where everything is automated, no human
interaction save a web interface.
I have an issue where a post-install script tr
I'm reading the description of PREPARE TRANSACTION, and I see this:
"...its state is fully stored on disk, and there is a very high
probability that it can be committed successfully..."
What corner case reduces 2pc from "guaranteed" to "very high probability"?
Is the worry if somebody leaves
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm reading the description of PREPARE TRANSACTION, and I see this:
> "...its state is fully stored on disk, and there is a very high
> probability that it can be committed successfully..."
> What corner case reduces 2pc from "guaranteed" to "very high probabilit
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 15:13 -0700, Ben wrote:
> I'm reading the description of PREPARE TRANSACTION, and I see this:
>
> "...its state is fully stored on disk, and there is a very high
> probability that it can be committed successfully..."
>
> What corner case reduces 2pc from "guaranteed" to "v
Er, right I guess I should have asked if it's more likely to commit a
running transaction than a prepared one and it sounds like the answer
is "no". :)
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm reading the description of PREPARE TRANSACTION, and I see t
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, right I guess I should have asked if it's more likely to commit a
> running transaction than a prepared one and it sounds like the answer
> is "no". :)
Less likely, because PREPARE TRANSACTION executes all the COMMIT-time
actions that can cause "expe
Is it possible to have few independant PostgreSQL 8.2 installations on the same
PC, WIndows XP?
Thanks,
Zlatko
On Thursday 19 July 2007 Tom Lane's cat, walking on the keyboard, wrote:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/overview.html
> (particularly 42.5)
I have already read this, thanks.
>
> src/backend/optimizer/README
I've read this yesterday, very interesting, but I'm looking for someth
If you mean multiple instances, Then it can be.
Have a look on Pauls personal Blog
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/paul/index.php?/archives/4-Running-a-Second-Instance-of-PostgreSQL-8.1.4-on-Windows-2003.html
Anoo S Pillai
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
30 matches
Mail list logo
