Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Short summary:
>> * Papers studying priority inversion issues with
>> databases including PosgreSQL and realistic workloads
>> conclude setpriority() helps even in the presence of
>> priority inversion issues for TCP-C and TCP-W like
>> w
Gentlemen,
I use a modeling language which compiles down to a fairly verbose SQL DDL. If I
use semantically transparent identifiers in the modeling language, the compiler
easily generates identifiers much longer than the default value of NAMEDATALEN.
I am considering the possibility of rebuildin
Ron Mayer wrote:
Before asking them to remove it, are we sure priority inversion
is really a problem?
I thought this paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf
did a pretty good job at studying priority inversion on RDBMs's
including PostgreSQL on various workloads (TCP-W and TCP-C) and
fo
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
...
> I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
> programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
> they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
> situation where priority inversi
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
...
I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
situation where
Alessandro Baretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am considering the possibility of rebuilding the server with
> NAMEDATALEN equal to 256. I have seen an interesting thread [1] about
> the performance impact of raising NAMEDATALEN, but it did not seem
> conclusive.
More to the point, tests done o
Brian Hurt wrote:
> Mark Lewis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
>>
>>> I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
>>> programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
>>> they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance,
Ron Mayer wrote:
Brian Hurt wrote:
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
they're evil. But, especially given prior
Hi List;
I have a client looking to host/co-locate multiple PostgreSQL clusters
(inclusive of PL/pgSQL application code) per server. I did some co-location
work several years back with one of the bigger telco's and remember there
were dire consequences for not carefully evaluating the expected
Brian Hurt wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Brian Hurt wrote:
>>> Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
> But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
>
> That second paper is interesting in that it says that STM solves the
> priority inversi
posting this here instead of the GENERAL list...richard is right, this is more
of a performance question than a general question.
thanks,
Mark Jensen
- Forwarded Message
From: Mark Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Richard Huxton
Cc: pgsql-general@po
Mark,
This fits the typical pattern of the "Big Honking Datamart" for clickstream
analysis, a usage pattern that stresses the capability of all DBMS. Large
companies spend $1M + on combinations of SW and HW to solve this problem,
and only the large scale parallel DBMS can handle the load. Player
Bruce,
> Someone should ask them to remove the article.
"Someone".
Um, *who* taught for Big Nerd Ranch for several years, Bruce?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, ple
13 matches
Mail list logo
