hello ...
did you check out antonin houska's patches?
we basically got code, which can do that.
many thanks,
hans
On 04/02/2017 03:30 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Hi hackers and personally Robet (you are the best expert in both areas).
> I want to ask one more question concerni
On 07/09/2016 11:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
the checkpoint_warning feature was added by commit 2986aa6a668bce3cfb836
in November 2002 when we didn't have any logging of checkpointing at
all. I propose to remove it: surely anyone who cares about analyzing
checkpointing beha
On 06/14/2016 09:59 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 6/12/16 2:13 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> 1. Instead of doing the entire database files encryption, how about
> providing user an option to protect only some particular tables that
> wants the encry
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 11:19, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>
> Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>> in addition to that you have the “problem” of transactions. if you failover
>> in the middle
>> of a transaction, strange things might happen from the application point of
>> view.
>>
>> the good thing, however,
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 10:32, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>
> Victor Wagner wrote:
>> Rationale
>> =
>>
>> Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it is
>> possible to create high-availability and load-balancing clusters.
>>
>> However, there is no support for failov
i think there is one more thing which would be really good in GIN and which
would solve a ton of issues.
atm GIN entries are sorted by item pointer.
if we could sort them by a "column" it would fix a couple of real work issues
such as ...
SELECT ... FROM foo WHERE "tsearch_query" ORDER B
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-21 08:10:42 +0200, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-08-19 20:15:51 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>>> 2
On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-19 20:15:51 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2013-07-24 09:20:52 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
Hello,
the purpose of this patch is to limit impact of pg
On Jun 16, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is something I don't know how to do, or if it's
> something we simply can't do, or if it's something we could do but the
> syntax can't handle :-)
>
> Basically, I'd like to combine a recursive and a non-recursive CTE in
>
On May 22, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
>> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
>> me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LI
On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Please find attached a patch implementing a basic version of
>>> index-only scans.
>>
>> I'm making some progress with this, but I notice what seems like a
>> missing featur
On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Alex Goncharov wrote:
> [ Thanks all for the very productive discussion in the thread
> "libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable"
> which I originated. Very useful. Now on something different. ]
>
> About two years ago, I had to research some P
On Sep 19, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> That said, to help in the case I described you would have to implement
>> the tapesort algorithm on the GPU as well.
>
> I think the real problem would be that we are seldom sorting just the
> key values. If you have to push
On Sep 2, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:51 +0200, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
> wrote:
>> hello …
>>
>> the goal of the entire proxy thing is to make the right query go to the
>> right node / nodes.
>> we determine t
the proxy what to append - and: this "what" would be
under your full control.
what do you think?
i got to think about it futher but i can envision that this could be feasible
...
hans
On Sep 2, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 +020
hello …
i have been thinking about this issue for quite a while ...
given your idea i am not sure how this can work at all.
consider:
begin;
insert 1
insert 2
commit
assume this ends up in the same node,
now you split it into two …
1 and 2 will have exactly the sa
On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Jan Urbański wrote:
> On 17/08/11 14:09, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION textprocess.add_to_corpus(lang text, t text)
>> RETURNS float4 AS $$
>>
>>from SecondCorpus import SecondCorpus
&g
hello …
i have just fallen over a nasty problem (maybe missing feature) with PL/Pythonu
…
consider:
-- add a document to the corpus
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION textprocess.add_to_corpus(lang text, t text) RETURNS
float4 AS $$
from SecondCorpus import SecondCorpus
from SecondDocu
On Aug 15, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
>
>> In short, this is how it works:
>>
>> SELECT pg_export_snapshot();
>> pg_export_snapshot
>>
>> 03A1-1
>> (1 row)
>>
>>
>> (and then in a different session
On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.08.2011 23:06, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Comments, testing, review appreciated...
>
> I would've expected this to use an index-only scan:
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE foo AS SELECT generate_series(1,10) AS id;
> SELECT 10
> postg
On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> In 9.0 (as in earlier versions) a former standby host has to do a full
>> checkpoint before becoming available as an independent database instance
>> in either switchover or failover scenari
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Joshua D. Drake's message of mié jun 22 15:37:17 -0400 2011:
>> Per:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg02043.php
>>
>> It seems we did come up with a use case in the procpid discussion. The
>> abili
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Joshua D. Drake's message of mié jun 22 15:37:17 -0400 2011:
>> Per:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg02043.php
>>
>> It seems we did come up with a use case in the procpid discussion. The
>> abili
hello ...
2.4? we know that some versions of 2.4 cause problems due to broken
posix_fadvise. if i remember correctly we built some configure magic into
PostgreSQL to check for this bug. what does this check do?
many thanks,
hans
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Merlin Mo
price has a problem :(.
"iphone" can be a 20 cents bag or a sticker or a 900 euro thing signed by
whoever ...
so, words and the sort-number / price are not related in anyway. price is in
this case no way to narrow down the problem (e.g. evaluate first or so).
many thanks,
hello ...
i got that one ...
"idx_product_t_product_titleprice" gist (to_tsvector('german'::regconfig,
title), int_price)
so, i have a combined index on text + number.
to me the plan seems fine ... it looks like a prober KNN traversal.
the difference between my plan and your plan seems to b
hello all ...
given oleg's posting before i also wanted to fire up some KNN related question.
let us consider a simple example. i got some million lines and i want all rows
matching a tsquery sorted by price.
i did some tests:
test=# explain (analyze true, buffers true, costs true) SELECT id FRO
hello ...
i have put some research into that some time ago and as far as i have seen
there is a 99% chance that no other database can do it the way we do it. it
seems nobody comes even close to it (especially not in the flexibility-arena).
oracle: disgusting workaround ...
http://www.orafaq.com
>>>
>>
>> Still, having more data a user can probe would be nice.
>>
>> I wonder why everyone avoids Microsoft's approach to the subject.
>> Apparently, they go in the 'auto-tune as much as possible' direction.
>> And tests we did a while ago, involving asking team from Microsoft and a
>> team
On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
>> fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
>> maybe something like this:
>>
>> WHERE (x < 5 AND y = 1) SELECTIVITY (0.1);
>>
>> Then, having pr
On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Nathan Boley wrote:
>>> Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
>>> fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
>>> maybe something like this:
>>>
>>> WHERE
>>>
>>
>> cheapest and easiest solution if you run into this: add "fake" functions
>> which the planner cannot estimate properly.
>> use OR to artificially prop up estimates or use AND to artificially lower
>> them. there is actually no need to redesign the schema to get around it but
>> it is
> Those are real problems, but I still want it. The last time I hit
> this problem I spent two days redesigning my schema and adding
> triggers all over the place to make things work. If I had been
> dealing with a 30TB database instead of a 300MB database I would have
> been royally up a creek.
On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2011/2/22 PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig :
>> how does it work? we try to find suitable statistics for an arbitrary length
>> list of conditions so that the planner can use it directly rather than
>> multiplying all th
hello everbody,
we have spent some time in finally attacking cross column correlation. as this
is an issue which keeps bugging us for a couple of applications (some years).
this is a WIP patch which can do:
special cross column correlation specific syntax:
CREAT
I have toyed around with KNN a little and I am pretty impressed when it comes
to the results we have seen in the GIS world.
Given the infrastructure we have at the moment I wonder if KNN can help to
speedup queries like that:
SELECT ... WHERE fti_query ORDER BY numeric_col LIMIT x
The use case
On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?=
> writes:
>> imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the
>> time taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.
>
> As the fine manual points out, the c
On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postg...@cybertec.at) wrote:
>> did anybody think of a solution to this problem.
>> or more precisely: can there be a solution to this problem?
>
> Please post to the correct list (-per
hello everybody,
we came across an issue which turned out to be more serious than previously
expected.
imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the time
taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.
i tried this one with 5000 unindexed tables (just one c
hello tom,
yeah, we have followed quite a lot of discussion as well ...
and yes, no patches.
as far as this problem is concerned: we are working on a patch and did some
prototyping inside the planner already (attached).
the code we have is pretty limited atm (such as checking for a sort clause
On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan writes:
>> we are experimenting with modifying table partitioning
>> so the ORDER BY clause can be pushed down to
>> child nodes on the grounds that:
>
> This is really premature, and anything you do along those lines now will
> pr
hello ...
here is the ultimate revelation of planner hints in postgres ...
let us praise oleg and teodor for solving a practical problem for practical
people ...
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/plantuner
try this one ...
it is excellent and definitely helpful for many many people out there.
as tom pointed out - this is not possible.
there is no limit 20 in my case - i just used it to indicate that limiting does
not make the index scan possible which it does in some other cases.
the partial sort thing simon pointed out is what is needed at this point.
many thanks,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:04:00PM +0200, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>> create table foo ( x date );
>> create table foo_2010 () INHERITS (foo)
>> create table foo_2009 () INHERITS (foo)
>> create table foo_2008 ()
hello ...
look at the syntax i posted in more detail:
>> ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS FOR (x.id = y.id AND x.id2 =
>> y.id2)
>
it says X and Y ...
the selectivity of joins are what i am most interested in. cross correlation of
columns within the same table are just a byprod
a command here.
many thanks,
hans
On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> On 14/07/10 13:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>>> maybe somehow like this ...
>>> ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS
On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 14/07/10 13:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>> hello everybody,
>>
>> we are currently facing some serious issues with cross correlation issue.
>> consider: 10% of all people have breast cance
hello everybody,
we are currently facing some serious issues with cross correlation issue.
consider: 10% of all people have breast cancer. we have 2 genders (50:50).
if i select all the men with breast cancer, i will get basically nobody - the
planner will overestimate the output.
this is the com
On Jun 24, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> I think, yes, it does make sense. Because we are talking
>> about porting a whole lot of COBOL applications.
>
> COBOL???
>
yes, COBOL :).
it is much more common than people think.
it is not the first COBOL request for PostgreSQL hitting my
49 matches
Mail list logo
