On 9 Oct 2002 at 10:00, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:07:29 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql.
>
> Shridhar,
>
> here is an implementation of a set of user types: char3, char4,
> cha
On 9 Oct 2002 at 10:00, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:07:29 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql.
>
> Shridhar,
>
> here is an implementation of a set of user types: char3, char4,
> cha
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:07:29 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql.
Shridhar,
here is an implementation of a set of user types: char3, char4,
char10. Put the attached files into a new directory contrib/fixch
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:42:12PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> > Hackers, do you think it's possible to hack together a quick and dirty
> > patch, so that string length is represented by one byte? IOW can a
> > database be built that doesn't contain any char/varchar/text value
> > l
> if i'm not mistaken, a char(n)/varchar(n) column is stored as a 32-bit
> integer specifying the length followed by as many characters as the
> length tells. On 32-bit Intel hardware this structure is aligned on a
> 4-byte boundary.
Yes.
> | opc0 char (3) nono 8 4
> | opc1
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:48:31 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I say if it's a char field, there should be no indicator of length as it's not
>required. Just store those many characters straight ahead..
This is out of reach for a quick hack ...
>Sure. But the server machi
On 7 Oct 2002 at 16:10, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> if i'm not mistaken, a char(n)/varchar(n) column is stored as a 32-bit
> integer specifying the length followed by as many characters as the
> length tells. On 32-bit Intel hardware this structure is aligned on a
> 4-byte boundary.
That shouldn't b
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:07:29 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql. All
>numbers include indexes. This is really going to be a problem when things are
>deployed. Any idea how can it be taken down?
Shridhar,
On 3 Oct 2002 at 8:54, Charles H. Woloszynski wrote:
> I'd be curious what happens when you submit more queries than you have
> processors (you had four concurrent queries and four CPUs), if you care
> to run any additional tests. Also, I'd report the query time in
> absolute (like you did) a
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Our major concern remains load time as data is generated in real time and is
> expecetd in database with in specified time period.
If your time period is long enough, you can do what I do, which is
to use partial indexes so that the portion of the
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling
> mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> 0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.
That will have a massive, massive e
Can you comment on the tools you are using to do the insertions (Perl,
Java?) and the distribution of data (all random, all static), and the
transaction scope (all inserts in one transaction, each insert as a
single transaction, some group of inserts as a transaction).
I'd be curious what happ
On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:06:10 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Machine
>Compaq Proliant Server ML 530
>
>"Intel Xeon 2.4 Ghz Processor x 4, "
On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:23, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:56, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling
> > mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> > 0 from RAID-5 might have
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:56, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling
> mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> 0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.
>
> There was a discussion
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Was the original posting on GENERAL or HACKERS. Is this moving the
> > PERFORMANCE for follow-up? I'd like to follow this discussion and want
> > to know if I should join another group?
>
> Shall I subscribe to performance? What's the exat list name? Benchmarks?
On 3 Oct 2002 at 8:54, Charles H. Woloszynski wrote:
> Can you comment on the tools you are using to do the insertions (Perl,
> Java?) and the distribution of data (all random, all static), and the
> transaction scope (all inserts in one transaction, each insert as a
> single transaction, some
On 3 Oct 2002 at 19:33, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2002 at 13:56, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> > It's one hell of a DB you're building. I'm sure I'm not the only one interested
> > so to satisfy those of us who are nosey: can you say what the application is?
> >
> > I'm sure we'll all un
18 matches
Mail list logo
