On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
> select count(*), sum(vl_ex_stax) , sum(qty) , unit from inv_detail group by unit;
> on both databases.
> PostgreSQL Machine
> **
> P-III 600Mhz (Dell Precision 220)
> 256 MB Ram (RD Ram)
> 40 GB Baracuda Ext2 File System.
> RedHa
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now, it is hotly debated on HACKERS about adding a NOWAIT
> clause to SELECT FOR UPDATE. If you think your application
> deployment is away for months and can try CVS head, you can expect
> some action on it in coming few days.
You can also t
Saleem Burhani Baloch kirjutas N, 19.02.2004 kell 11:01:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on
> redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration
> sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking
> that why the 7.1 process ag
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 (
> rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris.
> Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1
> process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I'm glad we could help you Saleem :)
We kne
On Thursday 19 February 2004 14:31, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh
> 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the
> query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process
Hi,
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a
lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3
sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I still have to go for 2 sec result and now I
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
I just tested it (within transactions) and it appeared that I could still
view the rows selected for update.
Ah, true. My mistake. OK, well you can do it in postgres then...
Chris
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
I just tested it (w
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>> 1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
> >>> it. ??
> >>
> >>
> >> You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
> >
> >
> > How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
>
> No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't
Easy two step procedure for speeding this up:
1: Upgrade to 7.4.1
2: Read this:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.po
"Saleem Burhani Baloch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a question why MS-SQL with 256 MB RAM gives result in 2 sec ?? If I have low
> memory Postgres should give result in 10 sec as compared to MS-SQL.
Are you still running 7.1?
regards, tom lane
--
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
---(end of broadcast)-
Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
I changed the conf as you wrote. But now the time is changed from 50 sec to 65 sec. :(
I have not more 256 MB ram now.
When I execute the query the
Postmaster takes about 1.8 MB
Postgres session takes 18 MB ram only.
& psql takes 1.3 MB.
After the query finishes the
I changed the conf as you wrote. But now the time is changed from 50 sec to 65 sec. :(
I have not more 256 MB ram now.
When I execute the query the
Postmaster takes about 1.8 MB
Postgres session takes 18 MB ram only.
& psql takes 1.3 MB.
After the query finishes the
Postgres session reducess mem
"Saleem Burhani Baloch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PostgreSQL 7.1.3-2
Aside from the config issues Chris mentioned, I'd recommend trying
a somewhat less obsolete version of Postgres. I believe the poor
performance with grouped aggregates should be fixed in 7.4 and later.
(Red Hat 7.2 is a bit
select count(*), sum(vl_ex_stax) , sum(qty) , unit from inv_detail group by unit;
on both databases.
PostgreSQL return result in 50 sec every time.
MS-SQL return result in 2 sec every time.
My PostgreSQL Conf is
*
log_connections = yes
syslog = 2
effective_cache_size = 327
Hello,
I m checking Postgresql and MS-SQl database server for our new development. On a very
first query Postresql is out performed and I think it is very disappointing. My query
consists on a single table only on both machines.
Table Structure
Table "inv_detail"
Attribute
18 matches
Mail list logo
