Hi all..
Can any one help me?
I'd like to know how can we get the following information in
PostgreSQL:
Execution plan
The I/O physical reads and logical reads, CPU consumption, number of
DB block used, and any other information relevant to performance.
Taking into consideration that these informati
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The problem is harder for us because a backend can't switch identities
>> once it's been assigned to a database. I haven't heard an adequate
>> explanation of why that couldn't be changed, though.
> Possibly it might decrease the performanc
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
>> wrote:
>> > So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
>> > what's needed is to ask "what can an in-core pool d
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>> So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
>> what's needed is to ask "what can an in-core pool do that an external
>> pool cannot do?"
>
> Avoid sending every co
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:15 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
> > wrote:
> > > So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
> > > what's needed is to ask "what can an in-cor
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
> > what's needed is to ask "what can an in-core pool do that an external
> > pool cannot do?"
>
> Avoid sending ev
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:33:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
> >> load of non-portable stuff? It seems to work o
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
> > what's needed is to ask "what can an in-core pool do that an external
> > pool cannot do?"
>
> Avoid sending e
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> So rather than asking "should core have a connection pool" perhaps
> what's needed is to ask "what can an in-core pool do that an external
> pool cannot do?"
Avoid sending every connection through an extra hop.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
>> load of non-portable stuff? It seems to work on a whole load of platforms.
>
> A lot of what Apache HTTPd does is handl
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:33 PM, phb07 wrote:
>
> Dimitri a écrit :
>>
>> It's probably one of the cases when having HINTS in PostgreSQL may be
>> very helpful..
>>
>> SELECT /*+ enable_nestloop=off */ ... FROM ...
>>
>> will just fix this query without impacting other queries and without
>> addin
On 7/21/10 6:47 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Craig James wrote:
By using "current" and encouraging people to link to that, we could
quickly change the Google pagerank so that a search for Postgres would
turn up the most-recent version of documentation.
How do you propose to encourage people to do tha
Greg,
First : thank you for you help.
On 22/07/2010 15:32, Greg Smith wrote:
Philippe Rimbault wrote:
I have one thousand inherited tables like this one (with a different
check constraint on each) :
The PostgreSQL partitioning system is aimed to support perhaps a
hundred inherited tables.
Philippe Rimbault wrote:
I have one thousand inherited tables like this one (with a different
check constraint on each) :
The PostgreSQL partitioning system is aimed to support perhaps a hundred
inherited tables. You can expect to get poor performance on queries if
you create 1000 of them.
FYI
I've just installed Postgresql 9 beta 3 (9.0beta3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu,
compiled by GCC gcc (Debian 4.4.4-6) 4.4.4, 32-bit)
After a pg_upgrade + vacuum analyze, i've got the following results :
Query on primary table :
select
documents.id,
documents.num,
sources.n
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On 22/07/10 03:27, Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>>> If http://postgresql.org/docs/9.0/* were to 302 redirect to
>>> http://postgresql.org/docs/current/* while 9.0 is the current release
>>> (and similarly for 9.1 and so on)
Oups! searching on the mailing list show me that it's a known problem ...
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-07/msg00063.php
sorry !
On 22/07/2010 09:52, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using Postgresql 8.4.4 on Debian.
In postgresql.conf, constraint_exclusion is se
On 22/07/10 03:27, Greg Smith wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
If http://postgresql.org/docs/9.0/* were to 302 redirect to
http://postgresql.org/docs/current/* while 9.0 is the current release
(and similarly for 9.1 and so on) I suspect we'd find many more links
to current and fewer links to specific
In response to AI Rumman :
> I have a table.
>
> \d email_track
> Table "public.email_track"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> +-+
> crmid | integer | not null default 0
> mailid | integer | not null default 0
> count | integer |
> Indexes:
> "
2010/7/22 AI Rumman
> I have a table.
>
> \d email_track
> Table "public.email_track"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> +-+
> crmid | integer | not null default 0
> mailid | integer | not null default 0
> count | integer |
> Indexes:
> "email_track
I have a table.
\d email_track
Table "public.email_track"
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+
crmid | integer | not null default 0
mailid | integer | not null default 0
count | integer |
Indexes:
"email_track_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (crmid, mailid) C
Hi all,
I'm using Postgresql 8.4.4 on Debian.
In postgresql.conf, constraint_exclusion is set to "on"
I have partitioned tables with check constraints.
My primary table :
CREATE TABLE documents
(
id serial NOT NULL,
id_source smallint,
nod integer,
num te
22 matches
Mail list logo
