Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 23:16 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 08:41 +0200, Sim Zacks wrote:
Another way of doing this, without dblink, is using an unsecured language
(plpython, for example) is to connect to the sql server using odbc and t
Sim Zacks wrote:
We use postgresql because it is open source, we have in-house experience
to deal with it so we don't have any extra support costs and we don't
need the features that are offered in commercial products that
PostGreSQL does not have. We also don't need the speed that commercial
Sir,
I am very new to Pgsql. I have a server serving 200
clients. I want to prepare a failover /mirroring
server which in case the original server fails should
take over automatically. Kindly Guide me.
With Regards,
Rayudu.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:06:45 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Granted there are scenarios where others are FASTER (SELECT
> COUNT(*)) but I find that if you are doing those items, you
> normally have a weird design anyway.
> Sincerely,
Sincerely, would you make an example of
--
Best Regards
Evgeny K. Shepelyuk
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list clea
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:30 AM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: [GENERAL] count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with
> extensibility
>
>
Hello.
After looking for a way to transfer PostgreSQL/PostGIS data from windowsXP
to linux (Ubuntu 7.10), I did not find it.
Please, does anyone know an easy way or free tool for it.
Thanks in advance
Best regards
Antonio
Antonio,
> After looking for a way to transfer PostgreSQL/PostGIS data from windowsXP
> to linux (Ubuntu 7.10), I did not find it.
> Please, does anyone know an easy way or free tool for it.
I do this via
pg_dump on the sender
and
pg_restore or psql -f
on the receiver site. Both are included
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:39:34 -0800
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:06:45 -0800
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Granted there are scenarios where others are FASTER (SELECT
> > > COUNT(*)) but I find that if you are doing those items, you
>
Dear list members,I am having table with 4M rows.I am trying to update all these rows with statementupdate mytable set mycolumn=0;At the same time there are insert happening on the table.but all these insert are in waiting mode. does update is locking the table for insert?does insert and update con
Hi,
Are there any benchmarks that compare different major versions of
PostgreSQL?
Cheers,
WBL
Hello
pgbench test - default configuration
Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Regards
Pavel
On 09/01/2008, Willy-Bas Loos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi chaps,
I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one supplied in
contrib.
I noticed this uses the "-m fast" argument for start and stop.
Before I setup the scripts I was using "-m smart" to make sure all
queries were finished before shutting dowm on all but my WAL slave.
I was go
Ivan,
> Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
> "exact count" and what other DB means with "an exact count" and how
> other DB deal with it?
PostgreSQL will give you an exact count of the contents of the
database as it is in the moment you begin your count. (i.e. the
On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:39 , Naz Gassiep wrote:
In a PHP project I have several functions that I use for DB
operations. I only want to allow one of them to write, all the
others are for reading only.
(Using DB level perms are out, as this is the function usage I'm
trying to control, not th
Glyn Astill wrote:
> I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one supplied in
> contrib.
>
> I noticed this uses the "-m fast" argument for start and stop.
>
> Before I setup the scripts I was using "-m smart" to make sure all
> queries were finished before shutting dowm on all but m
--- On Wed, 9/1/08, Ashish Karalkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From: Ashish Karalkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: [GENERAL] Insert waiting for update?To: "pggeneral" Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wednesday, 9 January, 2008, 4:29 PMDear list members,I am having table with 4M rows.I am trying to update al
Thanks Laurenz, that's a good point, I shall leave them as is.
Glyn
--- Albe Laurenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glyn Astill wrote:
> > I've just changed my startup scripts to use the linux one
> supplied in
> > contrib.
> >
> > I noticed this uses the "-m fast" argument for start and stop.
>
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:02:23 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
> Hi,
> When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table are
> restored in the same order? ie for example if
> Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and restore
> it
> to ano
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:39 +0100
"Harald Armin Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan,
> > Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
> > "exact count" and what other DB means with "an exact count" and
> > how other DB deal with it?
> PostgreSQL will give you an exact
On Jan 9, 2008 9:12 AM, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:02:23 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
> > Hi,
> > When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
> are
> > restored in the same order? ie for example if
> > Table A has r
Josh Harrison escribió:
> Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of some columns.
> But What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
> want my rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in
> TableABC in Database 1 ???
You can't.
--
Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense to use it with
a where.
Saying using count(*) is bad design means that the only design that you can
visualize is the specific one that you are using.
There are tons of real world examples where you need count. That is why so ma
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 14:07:13 + mailte Raymond O'Donnell folgendes:
> On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
>
> >When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
> >are restored in the same order? ie for example if
> >Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this or
2008/1/9, Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is because
> they are better products.
Not necessarily. FOSS products don't have a selling team to persuade
and bribe people. Expensive solutions, and that is in part what make
them exp
am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:45:11 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
> What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I want my
> rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in TableABC in
> Database 1 ???
For what reason?
Again: there is no order wit
Hi,
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table are
restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and restore
it to another database, will it have the rows in the same order
r1,r2,r3,r4,r5? Does this apply t
On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
are restored in the same order? ie for example if
Table A has rows r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 in this order, then if I pg_dump and
restore it to another database, will it have the rows in the sa
On Jan 9, 2008 9:35 AM, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 14:07:13 + mailte Raymond O'Donnell
> folgendes:
> > On 09/01/2008 14:02, Josh Harrison wrote:
> >
> > >When restoring the pg_dumped data thro psql does the rows of the table
> > >are restored in the
On Jan 9, 2008 9:59 AM, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> am Wed, dem 09.01.2008, um 9:45:11 -0500 mailte Josh Harrison folgendes:
> > What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
> want my
> > rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows in
>
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
> I am having table with 4M rows.
> I am trying to update all these rows with statement
>
> update mytable set mycolumn=0;
>
> At the same time there are insert happening on the table.
> but all these insert are in waiting mode.
> does update is locking the table for inser
My Postgre version its the 8.2. I´ve reached to do the path i wanted, but
when i do a explain analyze on the select it return 500 miliseconds. Is this
a good search? Is there a way to slow down this time with postgre 8.3? What
is a good time for xml xpath´s?
Thanks
2008/1/8, x asasaxax <[EMAIL PR
I believe I was misunderstood. The fact that a product is closed source does not
make it a better product. Some companies that are using Oracle would be better
off using PostgreSQL. Other companies that need the features that Oracle offers
would not be better off using Postgresql.
However, the
Hi there,
I am trying to install Postgres 8.1.11 on Mac Leopard. Compilation was
ok. Now, the initdb has some problems:
$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/initdb -D --locale=C /Users/schwarzer/Documents/
data_postgres
...
selecting default max_connections ... 10
selecting default shared_buffers ... 50
Thanks for the replayI think you missed on second detail mail :For more details:I have two tables master,child.with child having fk to master.Now
that master table contains 4M rows . while I update them (Master table)
the inserts are going into waiting mode on child table.Update
acquired row exclu
On Jan 9, 2008 3:24 AM, Rayudu Madhava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sir,
>
> I am very new to Pgsql. I have a server serving 200
> clients. I want to prepare a failover /mirroring
> server which in case the original server fails should
> take over automatically. Kindly Guide me.
Probably the e
Josh Harrison escribió:
> Another quick question...When you issue a query like this
> select * from dummy limit 10
> What 10 rows are fetched? like first 10 or last 10 or the first 10 from
> first block or ?
Any 10. (First 10 in the physical table _if_ a seqscan is used).
> And this query
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Harrison escribió:
>> Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of some columns.
>> But What if I want to maintain the same order as in the database1? ie., I
>> want my rows of TableABC in Database2 to be the same order as the rows
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:54:21 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Josh Harrison escribió:
> >> Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of
> >> some columns. But What if I want to maintain the same order as
> >> in the databas
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:33:54 +0200
Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense
> to use it with a where.
I got the impression from others comments that postgresql
under perform other DB even when a where clause on indexed column is
invo
On Jan 9, 2008 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josh Harrison escribió:
>
> > Another quick question...When you issue a query like this
> > select * from dummy limit 10
> > What 10 rows are fetched? like first 10 or last 10 or the first 10
> from
> > first block or ?
>
>
On Jan 9, 2008 8:33 AM, Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense to use it
> with
> a where.
>
> Saying using count(*) is bad design means that the only design that you can
> visualize is the specific one that you are using.
>
> There
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:37:38PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
> availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
> unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pain in the ...
Really? I don't think a RAID
On Jan 9, 2008 10:21 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:33:54 +0200
> Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Using count(*) is not bad design, though generally it makes sense
> > to use it with a where.
>
> I got the impression from others comments tha
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:28:15PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> Does it make any sense *knowing* how the implementation works to load
> records in a table in a specific order to improve performances?
Well, this is more or less what CLUSTER does. There are some cases where
happening to kn
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
>
> I got the impression that even counting with clauses on on indexed
> columns means you'll have to check if columns are still there. That
> seems to imply that the extra cost make pg under perform compared to
> other DB even
On Jan 9, 2008 11:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:28:15PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> > Does it make any sense *knowing* how the implementation works to load
> > records in a table in a specific order to improve performances?
>
> Well, this
Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> My questions
> 1. I pg_dumped dummy and Shuffled_dummy (from database1) to another database
> (database2)
> When I issued the query in both database (database1 and database2)
>
> select * from dummy limit 1000 ( the planner chooses seq scan for this qu
On Jan 9, 2008 11:28 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:54:21 -0500
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Josh Harrison escribió:
> > >> Fine. I can use order by when I want to order it in terms of
>
Stefan Schwarzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FATAL: XX000: failed to initialize lc_messages to ""
> LOCATION: InitializeGUCOptions, guc.c:2666
Typically what this means is that you have an improper setting of LANG
or LC_ALL in your environment ("improper" meaning that it doesn't match
any of t
On Jan 9, 2008 10:46 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> >
> > I got the impression that even counting with clauses on on indexed
> > columns means you'll have to check if columns are still there. That
> > seems t
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> accessed frequently. So clustering the table according to one index will
> yield poor performance to queries involving other indexes.
Maybe not poor, but certainly not optimised.
> Index-only scan is a good solution for this I gue
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:03:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> And if, for some god forsaken reason, you need to operate on that
> number, there's always "lock table"...
Yes. You could also store the data in ISAM :-P
> I feel dirty. :)
You should. Go wash your brain out with soap. LOCK T
On Jan 9, 2008 11:56 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > My questions
> > 1. I pg_dumped dummy and Shuffled_dummy (from database1) to another
> database
> > (database2)
> > When I issued the query in both database (database1 and datab
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
> I am having table with 4M rows.
> I am trying to update all these rows with statement
>
> update mytable set mycolumn=0;
>
> At the same time there are insert happening on the table.
> but all these insert are in waiting mode.
> does update is locking the table for inser
On Jan 9, 2008 12:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
>
> > accessed frequently. So clustering the table according to one index will
> > yield poor performance to queries involving other indexes.
>
> Maybe not poor, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:01:05 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
> "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now, everything's a tradeoff. If PostgreSQL had visibility
> > information in t
Hi,
i am trying to understand "Prepared Statements". I am asking because i want to
understand the impact of "Prepared statements" to my application.
Actually i use Hibernate, DBCP Connection Pool with Postgresql-JDBC Driver and
Postgresql 8.1.
- I know there is a PREPARE Statement in Postgresq
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, everything's a tradeoff. If PostgreSQL had visibility
> information in the indexes, it would have to lock both the table and
> index for every write, thus slowing down all the other queries that
> are trying to ac
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:58:29 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK... we are getting near to the point. I understand the trade-off
> > problem in storing into indexes id the row is still there.
> > Is there a way to get the count of the rows that *may be* there,
> If you analy
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo írta:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:39 +0100
"Harald Armin Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan,
Please forgive my naiveness in this field but what does it mean an
"exact count" and what other DB means with "an exact count" and
how other DB deal with it?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
>
> Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
There are three companies I know of that have done effective marketing of
systems.
Company O has a very advanced system with pl
On Jan 9, 2008 12:58 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:01:05 +0100
> Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:45 -0600
> > "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
On 09.01.2008, at 09:05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
cug
--
http://www.event-s.net
---(end of broadcast)-
On Jan 9, 2008 10:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> >
> > Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
>
> To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
>
> There are three companies I know of that have don
straight from jdbc2.1 doc
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jdbc/spec2/jdbc2.1.frame6.html
Statement
Statement object to submit a set of heterogeneous update commands together
as a single unit, or batch, to the underlying DBMS
i.e. execute Statement without parameters
http://java.sun.com/j2se
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:45:10 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But my account rep told me it was easy, and he'd never lie to me,
> would he? <@_@>
If he uses count(*) maybe, otherwise he is locking your $.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
--
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.
...
thanks.
> In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
> regardless of other transactions. Which way do you prefer?
Considering the
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I know there is a PREPARE Statement in Postgresql and read the docs.
- in PostgresqlJDBC i have a prepareThreshold parameter which i left to
default of 5.
- in DBCP i have a property "poolPreparedStatements", set to true. Does ist
just configure p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Guido Neitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FrontBase. It has an incredibly easy to configure replication and
>multi master clustering support, is very reliable and can also handle
>really big databases.
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn'
On Jan 9, 2008 6:00 PM, x asasaxax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My Postgre version its the 8.2. I´ve reached to do the path i wanted, but
> when i do a explain analyze on the select it return 500 miliseconds. Is this
> a good search? Is there a way to slow down this time with postgre 8.3? What
> is
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo írta:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.
...
thanks.
In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
regardless of other transactions. Whic
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:37PM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> For example if I have a query like
> select column2 from ABC where column1 > 20
> and table ABC is indexed on (column1,column2) then Oracle will not goto the
> heap to fetch the tuples. It will return them from the index itself since
Hi,
I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have added
8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have troubles.
Nothing else have changed ... I'm on a Dell server, and all the memory
diagnostics from Dell seems to be good ...
When I have a lot of con
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:57 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have added
> 8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have troubles.
> Nothing else have changed ... I'm on a Dell server, and all the memory
=?utf-8?q?Herv=C3=A9_Piedvache?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I have a lot of connexions (persistante connexions from 6 web apache/php
> serveurs using PDO, about 110 process on each web servers) on the server, or
> long request, it's difficult for me to know when it's appening, the kernel
Tom,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> =?utf-8?q?Herv=C3=A9_Piedvache?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When I have a lot of connexions (persistante connexions from 6 web
> > apache/php serveurs using PDO, about 110 process on each web servers) on
> > the server, or long request, i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zoltan Boszormenyi) writes:
> which will be fast and depending on the initial value of COUNT(*)
> it will be very close to the exact figure. You can extend the example
> with more columns if you know your SELECT COUNT(*) ... WHERE
> conditions in advance but this way you have to
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2008, Jeff Davis a écrit :
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:57 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a big trouble with a PostgreSQL server ... regulary since I have
> > added 8 Gb of memory, on a server having already 8Gb of memory, I have
> > troubles. Nothing el
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0800
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted to LKML here:
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/2/12/54202
>
> because linux has a behavior -- which in my opinion is a bug -- that
> causes t
Hi All,
First, some background:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
- The table referred to below is 120+ million rows, and has a width of 27
columns (15 smallints, 5 integers, 4 dates, 1 integer[], 1 single c
On 09.01.2008, at 13:51, Martin wrote:
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn't say
anything about it qualifies as "incredibly easy" and reliable it
is not.
We had never ever any reliability issues with FrontBase as long as
didn't try to insert garbage. It really doesn't
On Jan 9, 2008 3:57 PM, Hervé Piedvache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP
> 0+0
> Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Free swap = 15623168kB
> Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Total swap = 15623172kB
> Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: Free swap: 15623168kB
> Jan 9 20:30:48 db2 kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x
"Richard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
> upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
They won't even let you update to 7.3.something-reasonably-current ?
Resign. Go find a job with a boss whose IQ is above roo
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> pgbench test - default configuration
>
> Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
> tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
>
> but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Wow, even though it is a single benchmark,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> >>Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
> As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
It looks like a two-phase commit answer, if I'm reading correctly. You can
do this today on many systems (including Postgres), but the
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Richard Brown wrote:
- We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
Just make sure you CYA so when said server eats itself the decision maker
can't point the finger at you. Give them a copy of a
Pavel Stehule wrote:
pgbench test - default configuration
Verze 7.3.15 7.4.13 8.0.8 8.1.4 8.2.beta1 8.3beta1
tps 311 340 334 398 423 585
but pgbench is simple test and thise numbers hasnot great value.
Was that the same version of pgbench each time? Or was it
"Josh Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aggregate (cost=342178.51..342178.52 rows=1 width=0)
>-> Bitmap Heap Scan on person (cost=3120.72..341806.71 rows=148721
> width=0)
> Recheck Cond: (person_id > 114600::numeric)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on person_pk (cost
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0800
>
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I posted to LKML here:
> >
> > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/2/12/54202
> >
> > because linux has a behavior -- which in my opinion is
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 20:09, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Richard Brown wrote:
> > - We are using PostgreSQL 7.3.4, and am locked into this version. I would
> > upgrade if I could, but the decision is not mine.
>
> Just make sure you CYA so when said server eats itself the decisio
Can you tell me, in how much time did the query will take with indexes +
tsearch2?
How much time take a satisfactory query?
Can you show me some examples with tsearch2 and xml indexes?
Thanks
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
"
HINT: Close open transactions soon to avoid wraparound problems.
INFO: vacuuming "public.sessions"
INFO: scanned index "sessions_pkey" to remove 2 row
=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
> INFO: "sessions": found 2 removable, 6157654 nonremovable row versions
> in 478069 pages
> DETAIL: 6155746 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
The problem is that you'v
Hi all,
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE table_catalog=? AND table_sch
Gábor Farkas wrote:
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
on the db-server, 4 postgres processes are "idle in transaction", but
none is older than 2 days.
If you have something idle in tr
Ken Johanson wrote:
Hi all,
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE table_ca
Tom Lane wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
INFO: "sessions": found 2 removable, 6157654 nonremovable row versions
in 478069 pages
DETAIL: 6155746 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
The problem
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gábor Farkas wrote:
hi,
i have a postgresql-8.2.4 db,
and vacuuming it does not remove the dead rows
basically, the problem is this part of the vacuum-output:
on the db-server, 4 postgres processes are "idle in transaction", but
none is older than 2 days.
If you h
I am looking for expertise on how to program the equivalent to this
query, but using the pg_catalog tables, which I understand have fewer
security restrictions than information_schema in some cases:
SELECT column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE table_catalog=? AND table_schema=? AND
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
