On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Andreas Kretschmer
wrote:
> The standby is read only, vacuum runs on the master and replicated to the
> standby. Analyse as well.
Please note as well that if hot_standby_feedback is enabled, the
cleanup done by VACUUM on the primary is influenced as well so as
tu
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Andreas Kretschmer
> wrote:
> > The standby is read only, vacuum runs on the master and replicated to
> the standby. Analyse as well.
>
> Please note as well that if hot_standby_feedback is enabled, the
>
Thanks
On 31 July 2017 at 18:11, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Andreas Kretschmer
>> wrote:
>> > The standby is read only, vacuum runs on the master and replicated to
>> th
Hi
I am using pg_dump | psql to transfer data from my old 9.2 psql into a 9.6
psql.
The new DB server is setup as master replicating to a hot standby server.
What I have noticed is that the rows don't get replicated over until the
copy from stdin is finished... hard to test when you have M+ line
On 2017-07-31 11:02, Alex Samad wrote:
Hi
I am using pg_dump | psql to transfer data from my old 9.2 psql into a
9.6 psql.
The new DB server is setup as master replicating to a hot standby
server.
What I have noticed is that the rows don't get replicated over until
the copy from stdin is finis
Am 27.07.2017 um 12:05 schrieb vinny:
On 2017-07-27 10:27, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 25.07.2017 um 12:59 schrieb vinny:
On 2017-07-25 11:40, Thomas Güttler wrote:
I would like to reduce the "ifing and elsing" in my python code (less
conditions, less bugs, more SQL, more performance)
Wh
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Dmitry Lazurkin wrote:
> On 25.07.2017 00:31, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>
> Basically you want to write something like:
>
> SELECT *
> FROM ids
> JOIN ( :values_clause ) vc (vid) ON (vc.vid = ids.id)
>
> or
>
> WITH vc AS (SELECT vid FROM ORDER BY ... LIMIT
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Dmitry Lazurkin wrote:
> On 25.07.2017 05:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> It isn't either-or. It is the processing of millions of rows over the
>> large in-list which is taking the time. Processing an in-list as a hash
>> table would be great, but no one has gotten ar
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wr
>
>
> regression=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT count(*) FROM ids WHERE id
> IN
> :values_clause;
> QUERY PLAN
>
>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:03 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The cost to form the inner hash is basically negligi
On 31.07.2017 19:42, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I think it is simply because no one has gotten around to implementing
> it that way. When you can just write it as a values list instead, the
> incentive to make the regular in-list work better is not all that strong.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
I see from explai
I have an issue regarding partitioned TEMP tables.
I have a database with a number of families of tables partitioned by day as
described in section 5.10 of the User's Manual. I have an empty parent
tables each with a number of child tables containing data partitioned by
date. Each child has a CHEC
On 2017-07-25 01:15:56 +1200, Tim Uckun wrote:
> I don't like the approach with a large increment. It would mean complicated
> logic to see if you filled the gap and then update all the other peers if you
> did. It sounds like the re-order is going to be expensive no matter what. My
> primary conce
Ed Behn writes:
> Does partitioning of TEMP tables not work like non-TEMP tables?
Should be the same ... but you don't get any auto-analyze support on
a temp table. I wonder if you're remembering to ANALYZE the temp
tables after you've populated them.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:31 AM, vinny wrote:
> On 2017-07-31 11:02, Alex Samad wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I am using pg_dump | psql to transfer data from my old 9.2 psql into a
>> 9.6 psql.
Note that you should be doing pg_dump with 9.6's pg_dump, as it's
possible for 9.2's pg_dump to not know about
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
> How expensive is dynamic over static. I'm looking at storing yearly now, so
> I figure if my if then clause has the latest year at the top it should be
> very quick.
Assuming you're not doing anything particularly crazy it's minimal.
But what
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, tel medola wrote:
>
>> Depends.
>> When you create your tables in new schema, the script was the same from
>> "qa"?
>> Sequences, tables, etc.. belong to the schema where was created.
>>
>> Roberto.
>>
>
I have a client who has streaming replication setup with the primary in one
city and standby in another city both identical servers with Postgresql 9.6 on
Windows Server 2012.
They have some network issues, which is causing the connection from the primary
to standby to drop sometimes. And rece
Hi
create table dimc1
(
col1 integer not null,
col2 char(10),
primary key (col1)
);
create table dimc2
(
col1 integer not null,
col2 char(10),
primary key (col1)
);
testdb=# select * from dimc1 order by 1;
col1 |col2
--+
111 | foo111
112 | foo112
(2 row
armand pirvu wrote:
But what if in the conflict situation I want to performa the update ONLY if the
record is different. The update seems to happen no matter what
In other words is there anyway I can filter the update to happen (based on the
sample date) only for 112 since col2 is different ?
That's because the access on this case is done to the existing row using the
table's name / alias , and to the rows that we attempt to insert using the
excluded
Thank you Peter
Armand
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> armand pirvu wrote:
>> But what if in the
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:08 AM, dpat wrote:
> yes i have estimated pg_xlog but server, some time, writes a lot of WAL file.
> there are some robust alternative to replicate partial database in
> Postgresql over WAN?
> or, what's the best way to realign pglogical replica? pg_dump/restore?.
> i hav
Ed Behn writes:
> I tried that. I didn't seem to help.
Well, it works in a simple test case for me. You'll need to post a
self-contained example that's not working if you want much help ...
regression=# create temp table pp(f1 int, f2 text);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create temp table c1(check(
Recently, I've been doing a research about data warehouse optimizations and
techniques. For example, Oracle uses parallel queries, materialized views
with different refresh modes, star transformations in queries, etc. Since
I've never worked with PostgreSQL in an OLAP environment, I thought maybe
t
Hi
I'm using pg_dump 9.6 to do the dumps.
I'm also pretty sure no data is being replicated until the end of the copy
stdin as I was watching tcpdump output and I can see data from the orig
master to the new master and no traffic between new master and the standby,
pretty sure my replication is wo
The comparison would be
a if then else end if .. about 8 of them 2013-> and a static insert into
v's
making a dynamic string and using execute, my presumption would be the
execute would be expensive verses a INSERT command
A
On 1 August 2017 at 07:04, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2
Hi
I double checked and there is data going over, thought I would correct that.
But it seems to be very slow. Having said that how do I / what tools do I
use to check through put
A
On 1 August 2017 at 08:56, Alex Samad wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm using pg_dump 9.6 to do the dumps.
>
> I'm also pret
27 matches
Mail list logo
