Consider the following query on a large table with lots of different
`id's:
SELECT id FROM my_table GROUP BY id ORDER BY count(id) LIMIT 10;
It has an (usually unique) index on id. Obviously, the index helps to
evaluate count(id) for a given value of id, but count()s for all the
`id's shoul
My 3rd attempt to post ...
Consider this query on a large table with lots of different IDs:
SELECT id FROM my_table GROUP BY id ORDER BY count(id) LIMIT 10;
It has an index on id. Obviously, the index helps to evaluate count(id)
for a given value of id, but count()s for all the `id's shoul
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
> >> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wr
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:08:21PM -0400, Curtis Faith wrote:
>
> 2) Including the pros and cons of the feature/implementation and how close
> the group is to deciding whether something would be worth doing. - I can
> also do this.
The pros and cons of many such features have been discussed over
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:51:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a
> long list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
> sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up
> and wants to know why. Does
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:40:47PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > And a minor question is wheter it is legal to keep the _changes_ in such
> > a project GPL?
>
> Do you mean 'relicence the forked copy'?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > ... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
> > into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
>
> It may be optional some day, most likely
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
>
> We don't think it is needed, except perhaps for Win32 and Solaris, which
> have slow process creation times
Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
Thanks in advance (and also for all who commented to my question
regarding replication.)
Anuradha
NB: please don't open fire to declare war on whether multithreading is
needed for PGSql or not. I am just expecting a black and white
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:07:00PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> [ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]
>
> Anuradha Ratnaweera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I
> > have already looked at ongoing work
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:10:26PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> > good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
>
> Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 08:30:55AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
It seems that almost all the postgres processes remain in the `home'
node.
Please notice that I am not underestimating
Hi all,
I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The goal
is to achive `nearly complete fault tolerence' by replicating data.
The basic framework I have in mind is somewhat like this.
- Postmasters are runn
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:16, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> > already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think adding support for multiple slaves to usogres would be that
> problematic. Of course if you want to load balance your application queries,
> application has to be aware of that. I will not do sending req
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:04:29PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > I will look at it, too. Thanks for the link. In some cases, starting
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
