Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

Cyril VELTER wrote: I recently upgraded a 8.0 database to 8.2 (server is running windows 2003 server) and now I cannot dump the database any more. At some point in the dump, pg_dump (run on a centos 3 linux) return : pg_dump: Dumping the contents of table "c2674" failed: PQgetCopyData()

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Scott Ribe wrote: IIRC, it was later established that during those tests they had fsync enabled on OS X and disabled on Linux. You recall correctly but I'm guessing you didn't keep up with the investigation there; I was tempted to bring this up in that last message but w

Re: [GENERAL] I have a select statement on the issue.

On Nov 28, 2007 1:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Why the default output changes after I execute the update statement? > 2. Qustion, sorting as main keys when query, how to do? See: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/queries-order.html ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [GENERAL] I have a select statement on the issue.

Hi, On Mittwoch, 28. November 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Step 4:Update Date | update test set name='name' where code='1002' Simplified, when you perform an update, PostgreSQL internally marks the affected row as deleted and inserts a new row in the table. For details look at the MVCC d

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Ron Johnson wrote: There was a benchmark in Feb 2007 which demonstrated that FBSD 7.0 scaled *better* than Linux 2.6 after 4 CPUs. http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html Turns out that there was/is a bug in glibc's malloc(). Don't know if it's been fixed yet. Last I

Re: [GENERAL] System Load analyze

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Peter Bauer wrote: top shows that the CPUs are at least 80% idle most of the time so i think there is an I/O bottleneck. top also shows that you're never waiting for I/O which is usually evidence there isn't an I/O bottleneck. You passed along most of the right data, bu

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL DB split

Hi, I'm currently using a PostgreSQL DB on my disk memory, but right now I need to split this DB in this way: a. the first DB (or first DB partion) will be stored in the Flash memory and it will contain the system configuration values; b. the second DB (or second DB partion) wil

Re: [GENERAL] WAL Recovery

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 06:05 +, Ashish Karalkar wrote: > I have PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on Suse Linux > > Whne I am doing recovery from WAL archives I see in the logger that > "01.history file not found" infact server has not created such > file insted it created 01.backup file which contain

Re: [GENERAL] client_encoding error

Glyn Astill wrote: > Whilst trying to migrate one of our tables to postgres we get the > following error: > > invalid byte sequence for encoding "EUC_JP" : 0x9c32 > HINT: This error can also happen if the byte sequence does not match > the enccding expected by the server, which is controlled by "c

Re: [GENERAL] WAL Recovery

Thanks Simon for your replay, Yes I have followed the same instruction givn on the link, still it is happining , should i ignore this message too? With Regards Ashish Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 06:05 +, Ashish Karalkar wrote: > I have PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on

Re: [GENERAL] Config settings for large restore

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Erik Jones wrote: > I'm just wondering what is considered the general wisdom on config setting > for large pg_restore runs. I think the first thing you can do is to "fsync=off" temporarily. But do remember to turn this back on when you're done restoring. Regards Tometzky --

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On 11/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Kind of. Mach is still running underneath (and a lot of the app APIs > > use it directly) but there is a BSD 'personality' above it which > > (AIUI) is big parts of FreeBSD ported to run on Mach. So

Re: [GENERAL] WAL Recovery

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:00 +, Ashish Karalkar wrote: > Thanks Simon for your replay, > Yes I have followed the same instruction givn on the link, still it is > happining , should i ignore this message too? Yes. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---

[Re] Re: [Re] Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

De : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cyril VELTER wrote: > > > > maintenance_work_mem and work_mem are set to their default value (16M / 1M). > > Does Copy use any of these values ? The doc only state sort operations for > > work_mem and vacuum / create index / alter table add foreing key for

Re: [Re] Re: [Re] Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

Cyril VELTER wrote: It's just that 8.2.4 has a fix that says: Allow pg_dump to do binary backups larger than two gigabytes on Windows (Magnus) Now, whether that will affect you I'm not sure, since you said you were dumping from Linux, with the server on Windows. I don't think so. The dump

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL DB split

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm currently using a PostgreSQL DB on my disk memory, but right now I need to split this DB in this way: a. the first DB (or first DB partion) will be stored in the Flash memory and it will contain the system configuration values; b. the second DB

[GENERAL] Press contacts

There are still many countries/languages/regions not represented on the Press Contact list. http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/ http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/contact Please can supporters of PostgreSQL check the above links to ensure that we have coverage in as many countries and lang

[GENERAL] Error compiling Slony I

Hi people, When I try to compile Slony 1.2 I get the following error:P parser.y:1090:18: error: scan.c: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [parser.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/slony1-1.2.12/src/slony_logshipper' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/slony1

[GENERAL] Crosstab limitation...

Good day... I'm new in postgresql and I used PostgreSQL 8.2. I tried generating a query that can convert your rows into columns. I was happy when I discovered the crosstab function. But when I tried producing reports with more than 17 columns it displayed the following error message: ERROR: invali

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

> Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes > PostgreSQL much slower there. So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connection times. But what about the cases where persistent connections are used? Is it the case also that Windows has a performance bot

Re: [GENERAL] System Load analyze

Hi Greg, Am Mittwoch 28 November 2007 schrieb Greg Smith: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Peter Bauer wrote: > > top shows that the CPUs are at least 80% idle most of the time so i > > think there is an I/O bottleneck. > > top also shows that you're never waiting for I/O which is usually evidence > there i

Re: [GENERAL] Streaming LIBPQ? Sliding Window in LIBPQ?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:11:07AM -0600, Abraham, Danny wrote: > Is there a way to break the PGresult array to chuncks Like Oracle? > > I mean, without changing the text of given queries, > > can we somehow limit the memory consumption of a client that is using > LIBPQ? Use non-blocking mod

Re: [Re] Re: [Re] Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

"Cyril VELTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The server have 4G of ram. But doing a search in the source code it > does not > seem that these values are used during a copy operation. They aren't. The "out of memory" complaint sounds more like it might be due to corrupt data, ie the olde s

Re: [GENERAL] Streaming LIBPQ? Sliding Window in LIBPQ?

"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:11:07AM -0600, Abraham, Danny wrote: >> Is there a way to break the PGresult array to chuncks Like Oracle? >> >> I mean, without changing the text of given queries, >> >> can we somehow limit the memory consump

[GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

PostgreSQL Team, I have a large OEM customer (one of the top 8 for Sun worldwide) that is considering embedding PostgreSQL into the core of their primary product instead of Informix. He is trying to build his case for this change. Do we have anything that I can forward to him (something like

[GENERAL] Streaming LIBPQ? Sliding Window in LIBPQ?

Is there a way to break the PGresult array to chuncks Like Oracle? I mean, without changing the text of given queries, can we somehow limit the memory consumption of a client that is using LIBPQ? The API is ... extern PGresult *PQexec(PGconn *conn, const char *query); Is there

Re: [GENERAL] Config settings for large restore

On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Erik Jones wrote: I'm just wondering what is considered the general wisdom on config setting for large pg_restore runs. I know to increase maintenance_work_mem and turn off autovacuum and stats collection. Shoule should checkpoint_segments and checkpoint_time

[GENERAL]

Hi, Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? I'd like to create a query that says something like: select * except fieldx What I'm hoping to achieve is a query that can be valid for a number of different tables, although the field I don't want to select is alwa

[GENERAL] Select all fields except one

Hi, Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? I'd like to create a query that says something like: select * except fieldx What I'm hoping to achieve is a query that can be valid for a number of different tables, although the field I don't want to select is alwa

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL DB split

On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Richard Huxton wrote: I can read that I can create a PostgreSQL DB on the RAMDisk partion, but I'm wondering if is it possible to create one DB with two schemas in two different memory location (RAM and flash)? See the manuals for "tablespaces". but postgres

Re: [GENERAL] Error compiling Slony I

On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi people, When I try to compile Slony 1.2 I get the following error:P parser.y:1090:18: error: scan.c: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [parser.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/slony1-1.2.12/src/slony_logshipper' make[1]: *** [

Re: [GENERAL] Streaming LIBPQ? Sliding Window in LIBPQ?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:27:56PM +, Gregory Stark wrote: > > Use non-blocking mode to get the data in chunks. You can't easy control > > the number of rows you get each time though... > > This doesn't really help. It's nonblocking but you still can't get libpq to > actually give you a result

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: > > Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes > > PostgreSQL much slower there. > > So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connection times. But > what about the cases where persistent connections

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Matt Doughty wrote: Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? I'd like to create a query that says something like: select * except fieldx For best practices, you should never use select * in your queries. You will inevitably end

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/07 11:13, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: >>> Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes >>> PostgreSQL much slower there. >> So grossly slower process creation would

Re: [GENERAL] Config settings for large restore

Thanks, we're at 128 now but I'll see how bumping that up goes. On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Vivek Khera wrote: On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Erik Jones wrote: I'm just wondering what is considered the general wisdom on config setting for large pg_restore runs. I know to increase maintena

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/07 11:18, Vivek Khera wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Matt Doughty wrote: > >> Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? >> I'd like to create a query that says something like: >> >> select * except fieldx

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

Hi Chad I had a devil of a time finding any usable doc on Informix whereas Postgres/MySQL and Oracle all had documentation aplenty Im still looking for a whitepaper or any benchmarks http://www.iiug.org/forums/ids/index.cgi/noframes/read/3517 Anyone? M-- - Original Message - Wrom: VFVWR

Re: [GENERAL] Streaming LIBPQ? Sliding Window in LIBPQ?

On Nov 28, 2007 10:51 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The trick was to set non-blocking mode and send an async query. Then > PQisBusy() would return false when any data had been received, not just > when all data had been received. At that point you could call > PQgetResult

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/28/07 11:13, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes PostgreSQL much slower there. >>> So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connecti

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

There's probably some way to pull all the field names from the metadata tables and build a query on-the-fly that selects all but the offensive one. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Doughty Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:06:45PM +0100, Matt Doughty wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? > I'd like to create a query that says something like: > > select * except fieldx > > What I'm hoping to achieve is a query that can be valid for a numbe

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

On Nov 28, 2007 10:32 AM, Chad Hendren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PostgreSQL Team, > > I have a large OEM customer (one of the top 8 for Sun worldwide) that is > considering embedding PostgreSQL into the core of their primary product > instead of Informix. He is trying to build his case for this

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:37:43 -0800 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:06:45PM +0100, Matt Doughty wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a way of selecting all fields except for one in particular? > > I'd like to create a q

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: > > > Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes > > > PostgreSQL much slower there. > > > > So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connectio

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes PostgreSQL much slower there. >>> So grossly slower process creation would kil

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

Hi Merlin, Chad, Merlin Moncure schrieb: > there was a very excellent case study, written by cc'd person, that is > unhappily not available at the moment. see: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-08/msg00147.php Thank you :-) The link in the post is not up to date. The linked c

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800 "Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: > > > > Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() con

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

On Nov 28, 2007 12:18 PM, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For best practices, you should never use select * in your queries. You will > inevitably end up with code that cannot deal with a schema change, and for > any live system, you will have a schema change at some point... > > It is be

Re: [GENERAL] Recheck condition

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:18:56PM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote: > Hi, > Sorry if my question is silly. > When I use explain analyze command I come across 'recheck condition' in some > places. > I googled for this but didn't get any solid answers. Some indexes are inexact, i.e. they may sometimes r

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Chad Hendren wrote: PostgreSQL Team, I have a large OEM customer (one of the top 8 for Sun worldwide) that is considering embedding PostgreSQL into the core of their primary product instead of Informix. He is trying to build his case for this change. Do we h

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trevor Talbot wrote: > > On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There is at least one other bottleneck, probably more than one. Context > >> switching between processes is a lot more expensive than on Unix (given > >>

[GENERAL] Recheck condition

Hi, Sorry if my question is silly. When I use explain analyze command I come across 'recheck condition' in some places. I googled for this but didn't get any solid answers. What is recheck condition and when does the query planner choose this? Thanks josh

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:47:19AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:37:43 -0800 > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:06:45PM +0100, Matt Doughty wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is there a

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:14:52 -0800 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This sounds like self-modifying code. I'd submit that you're > > > trying to do the wrong thing in the first place, and that you > > > should look over your design for

Re: [GENERAL] How to automate password requests?

Marten Lehmann wrote: Hello, I'm trying to automate some postgresql scripts, but I cannot find a way to pass a password directly to commands like pg_dump psql and so on. Even a echo "password" | psql doesn't work, the password prompt of psql is still waiting. mysql has the -p option. What w

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] plperl and regexps with accented characters - incompatible?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Just as a followup, I reported this as a bug and it is being looked at and discussed: http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=47576 Appears there is no easy resolution yet. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x149

Re: [GENERAL] Select all fields except one

Seems odd that you'd know specifically which column you don't want, but not know what columns you do want. And then not care what order those desired columns happen to be be returned in. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fetter Sent: We

[GENERAL] How to automate password requests?

Hello, I'm trying to automate some postgresql scripts, but I cannot find a way to pass a password directly to commands like pg_dump psql and so on. Even a echo "password" | psql doesn't work, the password prompt of psql is still waiting. mysql has the -p option. What would be the postgresql

Re: [GENERAL] Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

On 11/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800 > "Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: > > > > > Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is > > > > > what makes Postgre

Re: [GENERAL] How to automate password requests?

On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Marten Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to automate some postgresql scripts, but I cannot find a way > to pass a password directly to commands like pg_dump psql and so on. > Even a > > echo "password" | psql > > doesn't work, the password pro

Re: [GENERAL] Recheck condition

>Some indexes are inexact, i.e. they may sometimes return tuples that >don't actually match the index condition. What causes an index to be inexact. When you create an index and vacuum it regularly, it is suppose to be correctright?? >This also happens with bitmap >scans, because it'll return

[Re] Re: [Re] Re: [Re] Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

De : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Cyril VELTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The server have 4G of ram. But doing a search in the source code it > > does not > > seem that these values are used during a copy operation. > > They aren't. The "out of memory" complaint sounds more like it m

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] plperl and regexps with accented characters - incompatible?

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Just as a followup, I reported this as a bug and it is being looked at and discussed: http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=47576 Appears there is no easy resolution yet. We might be able to do something with the suggested workaround. I will se

Re: [GENERAL] Another question about partitioning

Yes, I enter query manually while testing. Here are explain plans : for select count(*) from poll_3 where eid = 72333 "Aggregate (cost=34697.64..34697.65 rows=1 width=0)" " -> Seq Scan on poll_3 (cost=0.00..34650.40 rows=18893 width=0)" "Filter: (eid = 72333)" for for select count(*

Re: [Re] Re: [Re] Re: [Re] Re: [GENERAL] Unknown winsock error 10061while dumping a big database

Cyril VELTER wrote: I have run the following query to get all record with one field over 10MB : select p2,length(p18155),length(p18154),length(p4065),length(p4083),length(p4020),lengt h(p4074),length(p3857),length(p32402),length(p5512),length(p18175) from c2674 where length(p18155)>1

Re: [GENERAL] Recheck condition

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:20:11PM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote: > >Some indexes are inexact, i.e. they may sometimes return tuples that > >don't actually match the index condition. > > What causes an index to be inexact. When you create an index and vacuum it > regularly, it is suppose to be correc

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] plperl and regexps with accented characters - incompatible?

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Just as a followup, I reported this as a bug and it is being looked at and discussed: http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=47576 Appears there is no easy resolution yet. We might be able to do something with the suggest

[GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

Hello, is there a way to instruct cluster to store the temporary created data on a different tablespace (i.e. drive)? If not, wouldn't that have a decent performance impact or is most of the time spend retrieving the data in index order? Rainer ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Rainer Bauer wrote: Hello, is there a way to instruct cluster to store the temporary created data on a different tablespace (i.e. drive)? If not, wouldn't that have a decent performance impact or is most of the time spend retrieving the data in index order?

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

On Nov 28, 2007 9:32 AM, Chad Hendren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a large OEM customer (one of the top 8 for Sun worldwide) that is > considering embedding PostgreSQL into the core of their primary product > instead of Informix. He is trying to build his case for this change. > Do we have

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

start here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/creating-cluster.html M- - Original Message - From: "Erik Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rainer Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces? On Nov 28, 2

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

Erik Jones wrote: >> is there a way to instruct cluster to store the temporary created >> data on a >> different tablespace (i.e. drive)? If not, wouldn't that have a decent >> performance impact or is most of the time spend retrieving the data >> in index >> order? > >What temporary created d

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Erik Jones wrote: >> What temporary created data are you referring to? > The one described in the manual > : > "During the cluster operation, a temporary copy of the table is created that > cont

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

Tom Lane wrote: >Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "During the cluster operation, a temporary copy of the table is created that >> contains the table data in the index order. Temporary copies of each index on >> the table are created as well." > >That's probably a bit misleading. Ther

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/07 17:11, Jeff Larsen wrote: [snip] > > Lastly on the Informix side, they have more advanced online > backup/restore tools. It's similar to PG PITR backup but does not > depend on file-system level backup tools. The option I use (called > ont

Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?

Rainer Bauer wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >Rainer Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> "During the cluster operation, a temporary copy of the table is created > >> that > >> contains the table data in the index order. Temporary copies of each index > >> on > >> the table are created as wel

Re: [GENERAL] Another question about partitioning

Alex Vinogradovs wrote: Yes, I enter query manually while testing. Here are explain plans : for select count(*) from poll_3 where eid = 72333 "Aggregate (cost=34697.64..34697.65 rows=1 width=0)" " -> Seq Scan on poll_3 (cost=0.00..34650.40 rows=18893 width=0)" "Filter: (eid = 72333)

Re: [GENERAL] Another question about partitioning

paul rivers wrote: Alex Vinogradovs wrote: Yes, I enter query manually while testing. Here are explain plans : for select count(*) from poll_3 where eid = 72333 "Aggregate (cost=34697.64..34697.65 rows=1 width=0)" " -> Seq Scan on poll_3 (cost=0.00..34650.40 rows=18893 width=0)" "F

Btree indexes temp copy Was [Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 18:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > For btree indexes, there is a temporary copy of the index data, which > will go wherever you have arranged for temp files to go. (I think that > easy user control of this may be new for 8.3, though.) In 8.2.5 is there a way to control this? I

Re: [GENERAL] Error compiling Slony I

Hi Vivek, Ah thanks, I have posted this to the slony list tooo, but it doesn't seem to have appeared yet so I thought I'd ask here. I've already tried removing and re-installing bison, but I shall try again as you suggest. You can't remember any other detail can you? Thanks Glyn --- Vivek Khera

Re: [GENERAL] Error compiling Slony I

Glyn Astill wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > Ah thanks, I have posted this to the slony list tooo, but it doesn't > seem to have appeared yet so I thought I'd ask here. > > I've already tried removing and re-installing bison, but I shall try > again as you suggest. Actually I think the suggestion is to re

[GENERAL] Create index syntax error

create index job_approver1_idx on jobs (approver1_id) I'm using 7.4 and pgAdmin 1.8 and I don't see why this simple command has a syntax error:- Query result with 0 rows will be returned. ERROR: syntax error at or near "index" LINE 1: EXPLAIN create index job_approver1_idx on jobs (approver1_id

Re: Btree indexes temp copy Was [Re: [GENERAL] Cluster using tablespaces?]

Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 18:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> For btree indexes, there is a temporary copy of the index data, which >> will go wherever you have arranged for temp files to go. (I think that >> easy user control of this may be new for 8.3, though.)

Re: [GENERAL] Create index syntax error

ERROR: syntax error at or near "index" LINE 1: EXPLAIN create index job_approver1_idx on jobs (approver1_id) You can't explain creating an index. -- Postgresql & php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't

Re: [GENERAL] Create index syntax error

"Chris Velevitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm using 7.4 and pgAdmin 1.8 and I don't see why this simple command > has a syntax error:- > LINE 1: EXPLAIN create index job_approver1_idx on jobs (approver1_id) CREATE INDEX isn't an explain-able operation, because it doesn't have a plan.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgresSQL vs. Informix

Chad -- <...> > > Have you seen any studies (either by Sun or others) that compares > PostgresSQL to other commercial database software (Informix, Oracle, > Sybase,etc.)? I am interested seeing a feature by feature comparison of > PostgresSQL and Informix. > Hope this ain't too late! I can'

[GENERAL] Why upgrade?

I'm currently using 7.4 and I trying find out what the value/advantage of upgrading to a more recent version and to which version. Chris -- Chris Velevitch Manager - Sydney Flash Platform Developers Group m: 0415 469 095 www.flashdev.org.au ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [GENERAL] System Load analyze

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Peter Bauer wrote: PERC4E/DI DC ULTRA320 SCSI RAID, 256MB Its Debian sarge with kernel 2.4.26.050719-686 #1 SMP. OK, so I'd expect you're using the megaraid2 driver. That and kernel 2.4.26 are a few years behind current at this point, and there have been plenty of perfo

Re: [GENERAL] Why upgrade?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:08:41 +1100 "Chris Velevitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm currently using 7.4 and I trying find out what the > value/advantage of upgrading to a more recent version and to which > version. The release notes - esp. for the major versions - are the best source of finding

[GENERAL] 60 Seconds to connected to Postgresql using ODBC or PGAdmin

--- On Wed, 11/28/07, Finn Lassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone else comment on what problems could be causing these slow connections problems? > Meanwhile, I don't understand why it now takes exactly > 60 seconds to connect to the database whether I use pgAdmin or my > connection strin

Re: [GENERAL] 60 Seconds to connected to Postgresql using ODBC or PGAdmin

--- On Wed, 11/28/07, Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Name lookups. Something is trying to look up a name, > failing and it's > timing out after 60 seconds. It seems the OP's connection string was set to localhost. Would this still indicate a Name Loopup problem? Regards, Richard

Re: [GENERAL] 60 Seconds to connected to Postgresql using ODBC or PGAdmin

Richard Broersma Jr wrote: --- On Wed, 11/28/07, Finn Lassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone else comment on what problems could be causing these slow connections problems? Meanwhile, I don't understand why it now takes exactly 60 seconds to connect to the database whether I use pgAdmi