On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 02:38 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't know what software you work with but the Postgres source is far and
> away the best documented source I've had the pleasure to read.
I agree the PostgreSQL source is very nice (for the most part), but I
think there could be more higher
I was at Linux world Tuesday, it was pretty good. I was in the "org"
pavilion, where the "real" Linux resides. The corporate people were on the
other side of the room. (There was a divider where the rest rooms and
elevators were.)
I say that this was where the "real" linux resides because all the
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:55:38AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> I still suspect that the correct way to do it would not be
> to use the single "correlation", but 2 stats - one for estimating
> how sequential/random accesses would be; and one for estimating
> the number of pages that would be hit. I
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Run:
hdparm -I /dev/hda
If you get a line like:
Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
*READ BUFFER cmd
*WRITE BUFFER cmd
*Host Protected Area feature set
*Look-ahead
*Write cache
>>> I've tested the performance of 8.0.1 at my dual-boot notebook
>>> (Linux and Windows XP).
>>>
>>> I installed 8.0.1 for Linux and Windows XP, and run pgbench
>>> -c 1 -t 1000 Under Linux (kernel 2.6.10) I got about 800 tps,
>>> and under Windows XP - about 20-24 tps.
>>>
>>> Next I switched off
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 08:03:39PM +0300, E.Rodichev wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >Question 1: Is your writeback cache really disabled in Linux, on the
> >harddrive? Windows fsync will *write through the disk write cache* if
> >the driver is properly implemented. AFAIK, on
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Also, didn't someone recently report some very significant performance
differences Windows networking QoS (Quality of Service) installed? You
might try that.
It's unlikely. Postmaster listens loopback, AFAIK loopback does n
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I've tested the performance of 8.0.1 at my dual-boot notebook
(Linux and Windows XP).
I installed 8.0.1 for Linux and Windows XP, and run pgbench
-c 1 -t 1000 Under Linux (kernel 2.6.10) I got about 800 tps,
and under Windows XP - about 20-24 tps.
Next I switched off vir
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I've tested the performance of 8.0.1 at my dual-boot notebook
(Linux and Windows XP).
I installed 8.0.1 for Linux and Windows XP, and run pgbench
-c 1 -t 1000 Under Linux (kernel 2.6.10) I got about 800 tps,
and under Windows XP - about 20-24 tps.
Next I
> I've tested the performance of 8.0.1 at my dual-boot notebook
> (Linux and Windows XP).
>
> I installed 8.0.1 for Linux and Windows XP, and run pgbench
> -c 1 -t 1000 Under Linux (kernel 2.6.10) I got about 800 tps,
> and under Windows XP - about 20-24 tps.
>
> Next I switched off virtual me
I've tested the performance of 8.0.1 at my dual-boot notebook (Linux and
Windows XP).
I installed 8.0.1 for Linux and Windows XP, and run pgbench -c 1 -t 1000
Under Linux (kernel 2.6.10) I got about 800 tps, and under Windows XP -
about 20-24 tps.
Next I switched off virtual memory under Windows (a
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:06:34 -0500 (EST), Bruce Momjian
wrote:
> Anyway, this is too large to put into 8.0, but I am attaching a patch
> for 8.1 that has the proper configure tests to check if the C library
> supports this behavior. If it does not, the build will use our
> port/snprintf.c.
> One
> And the user maintenance of updating those hints for every release of
> PostgreSQL as we improve the database engine.
I don't think so. Basically an optimizer hint simply raises or lowers the cost
of an index, mandates a certain join order, allows or disallows a seq scan ...
Imho it is not so
Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2005 10:22 schrieb Karel Zak:
> in PG: unicode = utf8 = utf-8
>
> Our internal routines in src/backend/utils/mb/encnames.c accept all
> synonyms. The "official" internal PG name for UTF-8 is "UNICODE" :-(
I think in the SQL standard the official name is UTF8. If someone w
>How would this differ from PERFORM?
I think perform goes through the SQL by using SPI to execute the function,
where as this statement will invoke a plpgsql function without going
through the
sql ( :-) ..in case i manage to add this statement )
thankz alot for your replies
regards
Sibtay
On T
I will be at the BLU booth Tuesday.
Any and all, drop by.
> I will be on Boston for Linuxworld from Tuesday through Thursday. I
> will read email only occasionally.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 22:05 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > At 2005-02-14 21:14:54 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
> > >
> > > Should our multi-byte encoding be referred to as UTF8 or Unicode?
> >
> > The *encoding* should certainly be referred to as UTF-8. Unicode
The checkpointer is entirely incapable of either detecting the problem
(it doesn't have enough infrastructure to examine pg_database in a
reasonable way) or preventing backends from doing anything if it did
know there was a problem.
Well, I guess I meant 'some regularly running process'...
I think
> Not being able to issue new transactions *is* data loss --- how are you
> going to get the system out of that state?
Yes, but I also would prefer the server to say something as "The database is
full, please vacuum." - the same as when the hard disk is full and you try
to record something on it -
19 matches
Mail list logo
