Hi to all.
I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time spent,
#of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement Selection
(external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm going to implement.
I'm new on PG, I just had the idea of how to possib
On Dec 11, 2007 4:06 AM, Manolo _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi to all.
>
> I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time
> spent, #of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement
> Selection (external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm g
Craig James wrote:
> This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions
> in a shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora
> Core 6 and gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the
> server, the serverlog gets this message:
>
> *** glibc detected
Hi Josh!
Thanks for your reply.
Actually I forgot to mention PGBench, sorry. But I also forgot to mention I'm
looking for an "impartial"... I mean "outer" tool to test PG.
Any suggestion, please?
Regards.
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:16:02 -0700
> From
The subject of the email:
Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b16f55)
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:40:37 -0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b16f5
Manolo _ wrote:
I'd like to benchmark PG. I'd like to compare sorting performances (time spent,
#of disk accesses, # of run produced etc) of the present Replacement Selection
(external sorting) algorithm and of a refinement I'm going to implement.
I'm new on PG, I just had the idea of how to p
RE: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b18776)
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:02:14 -0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Confirmação de envio / Sending confirmation (captchaid:132432b18776)
>
>
> A mensagem de
Hi,
This below query is taking more than 3 minutes to run, as you can see
from the explain plan it is pretty much using all the indexes still it
is slow, nested loops are taking too long. Is there anyway I can improve
this query performance ?
I am using postgres8.2.4. Here are the number
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Craig James wrote:
This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions
in a shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora
Core 6 and gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the
server, the serverlog gets this message:
*** g
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions in a
> shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora Core 6 and
> gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the server, the serverlog
> gets this message:
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is driving me crazy. I have some Postgres C function extensions in a
shared library. They've been working fine. I upgraded to Fedora Core 6 and
gcc4, and now every time psql(1) disconnects from the server, the serverlog
gets this
Craig James wrote:
> Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a
> third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the
> ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc()
> code that's walking over memory that regular malloc() allocates. The
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Craig James wrote:
Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a
third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the
ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc()
code that's walking over memory that regular malloc()
Craig James wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Craig James wrote:
>>
>>> Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a
>>> third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the
>>> ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc()
>>> code that's wal
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Craig James wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Craig James wrote:
Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a
third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the
ordinary way. I suspect that there's a bug in the Postgres palloc()
code that's
Craig James wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Craig James wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Craig James wrote:
> Here is my guess -- and this is just a guess. My functions use a
> third-party library which, of necessity, uses malloc/free in the
> ordinary way. I suspect that
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.5-15.fc6rh)
> Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
> welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
> [snip
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...Since you've now shown that OpenBabel is
multithreaded, then that's a much more likely cause.
Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be
linked to Postgres?
Absolutely not.
Ok, thanks, I'll work on recompiling OpenBabel without thread support.
Tom Lane wrote:
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.5-15.fc6rh)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>>...Since you've now shown that OpenBabel is
> >>>multithreaded, then that's a much more likely cause.
> >>Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be
> >>linked to Postgres?
> >
> >Absolu
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig James wrote:
>> Can you elaborate? Are multithreaded libraries not allowed to be
>> linked to Postgres?
> Absolutely not.
The problem is that you get into library-interaction bugs like the
one discussed here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please show that stuff you snipped --- it might have some relevant
>> information. The stack trace looks a bit like a threading problem...
> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
That's pretty suspicious, but not quite a smoking gun.
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
>> Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintainers could
>> update the Postgres manual. In chapter 32.9.6, it says,
>>
>> "To be precise, a shared library needs to be cre
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintainers could
update the Postgres manual. In chapter 32.9.6, it says,
"To be precise, a shared library needs to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:25:08 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
> >> Since I'm not a Postgres developer, perhaps one of the maintaine
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I can find no such text in our documentation at all, nor any reference
>> to OpenBabel. I think Craig must be looking at someone else's
>> documentation.
> It's actually 33.9.6 and it is in:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/xfunc-c.html#
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Craig James wrote:
>
>> This should be amended to say,
>>
>> "To be precise, a non-threaded, shared library needs to be created."
>
> Just before someone goes ahead and writes it (which is probably a good i
you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a
temporary piece of shit
my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no
one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_-
overhead information i would to know is row ove
kelvan wrote:
I wonder where did all the punctuation symbols on your keyboard went.
Your email is amazingly hard to read.
> overhead information i would to know is row overheads column overheads and
> header overheads for blocks and anything else i have missed
As for storage overhead, see here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage.html
On Dec 11, 2007 5:18 PM, kelvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a
> temporary piece of shit
>
> my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no
> one
On Dec 11, 2007, at 5:18 PM, kelvan wrote:
you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a
temporary piece of shit
my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but
obviously no
one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this
information is -_-
kelvan wrote:
you know what you lot have left my original question this server is a
temporary piece of shit
my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no
one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_-
overhead information i would t
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:45 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 06 December 2007 04:38, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > I think you're completly overlooking the effect of disk latency has on
> > > query times. We run queries all the time that can vary from 4 hours to
> > > 12 hours in time based so
Ok thx I have got it thx to David and Scott for the links I now know why I
couldn't find them as I was looking for blocks rather than page damn
synonyms
and to Eric thx for the criticism but yea I failed English so I know my
punctuation is bad unless I concentrate and I am to busy to do that
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, kelvan wrote:
my original question is what are the overheads for postgres but obviously no
one knows or no one knows where a webpage containing this information is -_-
In addition to the documentation links people have already suggested, I'd
also suggest
http://andreas.s
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:27:39PM +1200, kelvan wrote:
I have also learnt and also Richard pointed out just not in so many words
the difference in support from a open source community compared to a non
open source company is that the people who give support in open source are
opinionated rathe
Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:27:39PM +1200, kelvan wrote:
I have also learnt and also Richard pointed out just not in so many
words the difference in support from a open source community compared
to a non open source company is that the people who give support in
open source
Hi,
I am doing a performance benchmarking test by using benchmarkSQL tool on
postgresql 8.2.4.I need to tune the parameters to achieve an optimal
performance of the postgresql database.
I have installed postgresql 8.2.4 on RHEL AS4. It is a DELL Optiplex
GX620 PC with 4GB RAM.
Please suggest me
38 matches
Mail list logo
