"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried duplicating this but couldn't. What's the data in the tables?
Sorry, I had intended to include the definition and data:
stark=> create table t1 (a integer primary key, b integer);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:24:05AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> stark=> begin;
>
> BEGIN
>
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 13:34, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> That sounds like a great idea! How would you control the update to
> occur only every 10,000 transactions?
>
> Is there a trigger setting for that somewhere?
I was thinking something like
IF count(*) % 1 = 0 then
... do
Hi Jan,
That sounds like a great idea! How would you control the update to
occur only every 10,000 transactions?
Is there a trigger setting for that somewhere?
Thanks,
Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | [EMAIL P
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:20:59PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > Brendan Duddridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > We do have foreign keys on other tables that reference the product table.
> > > Also, there will be updates going on at the same ti
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 01:23:07 -0500,
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:20:59PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > Brendan Duddridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > More likely you were blocking on some lock. Until that other query holding
> > that lock tries to c
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:29, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> We'll probably have to write a process to update the click_count from
> querying our product_click_history table.
How about an insert trigger on product_click_history which updates click_count
every say 1 transactions or so?
jan
-
You should realize this will produce a lot of garbage records and
mean you'll
have to be running vacuum very frequently. You might consider
instead of
updating the main table inserting into a separate clickstream
table. That
trades off not getting instantaneous live totals with isolating the
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:20:59PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Brendan Duddridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We do have foreign keys on other tables that reference the product table.
> > Also, there will be updates going on at the same time as this update. When
> > anyone clicks on a produc
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Except I don't think this is taking an exclusive lock at all. The original
> > post had the deadlock detection fire on a SharedLock.
>
> Yeah, but it was a ShareLock on a transaction ID, which is the trace
> of s
Brendan Duddridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do have foreign keys on other tables that reference the product table.
> Also, there will be updates going on at the same time as this update. When
> anyone clicks on a product details link, we issue an update statement to
> increment the click
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And what PG version is this? Alvaro fixed the
>> foreign-keys-take-exclusive-locks problem in 8.1 ...
> Except I don't think this is taking an exclusive lock at all. The original
> post had the deadlock detection fir
Hi,
Thanks for your replies.
We are using PostgreSQL 8.1.3 on OS X Server.
We do have foreign keys on other tables that reference the product
table. Also, there will be updates going on at the same time as this
update. When anyone clicks on a product details link, we issue an
update state
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What queries are those two processes executing? And what foreign keys do you
> > have on the product table or elsewhere referring to the product table? And
> > what indexes do you have on those columns?
>
> And what
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What queries are those two processes executing? And what foreign keys do you
> have on the product table or elsewhere referring to the product table? And
> what indexes do you have on those columns?
And what PG version is this? Alvaro fixed the
foreign-key
Brendan Duddridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Further to my issue, the update never did finish. I received the following
> message in psql:
>
> ssprod=# update product set is_hungry = 'true' where date_modified >
> current_date - 10;
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 18778 waits
Further to my issue, the update never did finish. I received the following message in psql:ssprod=# update product set is_hungry = 'true' where date_modified > current_date - 10;ERROR: deadlock detectedDETAIL: Process 18778 waits for ShareLock on transaction 711698780; blocked by process 15784.
Hi,Is Postgres supposed to be able to handle concurrent requests while doing large updates?This morning I was executing the following simple update statement that would affect 220,000 rows in my product table:update product set is_hungry = 'true' where date_modified > current_date - 10;But the app
18 matches
Mail list logo
