My application has a function, call it "foo()", that requires initialization from a table
of about 800 values. Rather than build these values into the C code, it seemed like a good idea to
put them on a PG table and create a second function, call it "foo_init()", which is
called for each value
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:20AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> This works well, but it requires me to actually retrieve the function's
> value 800 times.
Is this actually a problem?
> So I thought I'd be clever:
>
> select count(1) from (select foo_init(value) from foo_init_table order by
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>select count(1) from (select foo_init(value) from foo_init_table order by
> value_id) as foo;
> And indeed, it count() returns 800, as expected. But my function foo_init()
> never gets called!
Really? With the ORDER BY in there, it does get ca
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:20AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> This doesn't seem right to me -- how can the optimizer possibly know that a
> function doesn't have a side effect, as in my case? Functions could do all
> sorts of things, such as logging activity, filling in other tables, etc,
>
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This doesn't seem right to me -- how can the optimizer possibly know that a
> function doesn't have a side effect, as in my case? Functions could do all
> sorts of things, such as logging activity, filling in other tables, etc, etc.
The optimizer ca
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 11:42:20PM +0200, Mario Splivalo wrote:
> Could you point out to some more detailed reading on why Xeons are
> poorer choice than Opterons when used with PostgreSQL?
There are lots of theories, none conclusive, but the benchmarks certainly
point that way consistently. Read
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
> > One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
> > I'm using httperf/autobench for m
Mario Splivalo wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
I'm using httperf/aut
""John Top-k apad"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> from pg_stast_get_blocks_fetched i can see that both queries need almost
the
> same number of disk fetches which is quite reasonable ( the index is
> unclustered).
>
> But as you can see there is a great variation between query
> runtimes.Cansomeon
Where is the pgsql_tmp folder present ?. i am unable to see it in the data directory of postgresql.
~gourish
On 6/9/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:23:04PM +0200, Domenico - Sal. F.lli Riva wrote:> Hello,>> During insert or update, potgresql write in pg
10 matches
Mail list logo
