Sorry all - this was a duplicate from another of my addresses =( Thanks to all
that have helped out on both threads.
On 21/09/2011, at 8:44 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It looks like I've been hit with this well known issue. I have a complicated
> query that is intended to run
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
> Hi all,
> It looks like I've been hit with this well known issue. I have
> a complicated query that is intended to run every few minutes, I'm using
> JDBC's Connection.prepareStatement() mostly for nice parameterisation, but
> postgres produ
one thing, in SUM() , you don't have to coalesce. Consider following example:
foo=# create table bar(id serial primary key, a float);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "bar_id_seq" for
serial column "bar.id"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index
"bar_pkey
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> really pretty simple: decide whether to use a custom (parameter-aware)
>> plan or a generic (not-parameter-aware) plan.
> Before I go digging into this, I was wondering, is this going to address
> our current problem of not being
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> really pretty simple: decide whether to use a custom (parameter-aware)
> plan or a generic (not-parameter-aware) plan.
Before I go digging into this, I was wondering, is this going to address
our current problem of not being able to use prepared que
* Royce Ausburn (royce...@inomial.com) wrote:
> > Tom just mentioned that 9.1 will be able to re-plan parameterized prepared
> > statements, so this issue will go away. In the mean time you can only
> > really use the standard workaround of setting the prepare theshold to 0 to
> > disable server
Andy Lester writes:
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 9.2, sorry, not 9.1. We could use some motivated people testing that
>> aspect of GIT HEAD, though, since I doubt the policy for when to re-plan
>> is quite ideal yet.
> Is motivation and a box enough? I have motivation, but
On Sep 20, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 9.2, sorry, not 9.1. We could use some motivated people testing that
> aspect of GIT HEAD, though, since I doubt the policy for when to re-plan
> is quite ideal yet.
Is motivation and a box enough? I have motivation, but not knowledge of
interna
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 21/09/2011 7:27 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>> We've been worst hit by this query on an 8.3 site. Another site is
>> running 8.4. Have there been improvements in this area recently?
>> Upgrading to 9.0 might be viable for us.
> Tom just mentioned that 9.1 will be able t
On 21/09/2011, at 9:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 7:27 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like I've been hit with this well known issue. I have a
>> complicated query that is intended to run every few minutes, I'm using
>> JDBC's Connection.prepareStatement() most
On 21/09/2011 7:27 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
Hi all,
It looks like I've been hit with this well known issue. I have
a complicated query that is intended to run every few minutes, I'm
using JDBC's Connection.prepareStatement() mostly for nice
parameterisation, but postgres produces a suboptima
11 matches
Mail list logo
