Kevin Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't have handy a spec guide. Does this mean that MySQL is indeed
showing incorrect behavior?
I think this is really outside the spec. The relevant sections of SQL92
seem to be in 13.10 update statement: searched:
update statement: searched
Tom Lane wrote:
I don't have handy a spec guide. Does this mean that MySQL
is indeed showing incorrect behavior?
I think this is really outside the spec.
[...]
There is not anything I can see addressing whether an
update should or should not be considered to occur if a
target column
Relyea, Mike wrote:
After setting log_statement = 'all', I ran my query using pgAdmin, and
then ran the query using Access. I now had all of the commands sent to
the DB by each application.
Remember, *something* in the sequence of commands that get
executed from Access must be different than
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:43:27PM +0200, Rainer Bauer wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the problem are the no. of semaphores created by Postgres:
Every backend creates at least 4*max_connections semaphores.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:23:16AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I tried going up to 2 max_connections, and still blew postmaster's
VM space long before paged pool was exhausted. I couldn't test any
higher values, as there's some interaction between max_connections and
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Kellerer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
asking compared to what? If they're afraid an RDBMS won't scale,
what have
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:11:32PM -0700, snacktime wrote:
So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
throw some out I would really appreciate it.
One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted, 30M rows
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:11:32PM -0700, snacktime wrote:
So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
throw some out I would really appreciate it.
One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted, 30M rows
In response to Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
I'm wondering if what I'm doing is redundant.
I have a primary key on columns (A,B,C,D)
and I've also defined an index based on the same columns (A,B,C,D)
and sometimes in the query explain, I see the pkey being
In response to Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Kellerer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
asking compared to
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:41:14AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:23:16AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I tried going up to 2 max_connections, and still blew postmaster's
VM space long before paged pool was exhausted. I couldn't test any
higher values,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Another followup. Been working with Dave on and off today (well, him mostly
on to be honest, me a bit more on and off), and it seems that both our
repros clearly blame the desktop heap, and nothing else. Please use the
desktop heap tool and see if it breaks when the
Magnus Hagander schrieb:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:43:27PM +0200, Rainer Bauer wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/20/07, Rainer Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the problem are the no. of semaphores created by Postgres:
Every backend creates at least
Dave Page wrote:
So, we seem to be hitting two limits here - the desktop heap, and
something else which is cluster-specific. Investigation continues...
I will make these tests tonight or tomorrow morning and will let you know.
Rainer
---(end of
On 10/22/07, Rainer Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well after installing Postgres explorer and starting the system information
program the kernel memory section shows me the current count, but not the
limits (it says no symbols). I am currently downloading the Debugging Tools
for Windows.
On Oct 22, 2007, at 5:44 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Kellerer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
asking compared to what?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:03:35PM +0200, Rainer Bauer wrote:
shared_buffers = 512MB
As a general note, thsi is *way* too high. All evidence I've seen points to
that you should have shared_buffers as *small* as possible on win32,
because memory access there is slow. And leave more of the
Dave Page wrote:
So, we seem to be hitting two limits here - the desktop heap, and
something else which is cluster-specific. Investigation continues...
In further info, I've been testing this with the 8.3b1 release build
that we put out with pgInstaller, and a build with all optional
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, snacktime wrote:
It's a web app that will be using ruby on rails. The challenge I'm
running into is that the latest conventional wisdom seems to be that
since obviously databases don't scale on the web, you should just not
use them at all.
Those who don't use a DBMS to
On 10/21/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried generating idle connections in an effort to reproduce
Laurent's problem, but I ran into a local limit instead: for each
backend, postmaster creates a thread and burns 4MB of its 2GB address
space. It fails around 490.
Oh,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:33:54PM +0200, vincent wrote:
One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted, 30M rows updated,
70M rows deleted, and 3G rows retrieved per day. At peak times of
the day it sustains around 120K rows/minute inserted, 80K rows/minute
updated or deleted, and 3.5M
On 10/22/07, Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
So, we seem to be hitting two limits here - the desktop heap, and
something else which is cluster-specific. Investigation continues...
In further info, I've been testing this with the 8.3b1 release build
that we put out with
--- On Sun, 10/21/07, Adrian Klaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a column with data structured as follows.
32TT - 0002
32LT- 0004
32PT-0005
Is there a way of selecting all of the rows containing
LT in that column??
I have attempted variations of ' *LT* ' with
out success.
I
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:04:03AM -0700, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/22/07, Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
So, we seem to be hitting two limits here - the desktop heap, and
something else which is cluster-specific. Investigation continues...
In further info, I've
Thank your for your responses :)
For an update, here is what I discovered:
If we convert back to XML mappings instead of annotations, the column
name can be specified in the order-by attribute (instead of the java
attribute name), so we can use back ticks as usual.
I forgot to mention that
On 10/22/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read somewhere that Vista makes the size of the desktop heap dynamic, but
you were on 2003, right?
Yeah, 32bit 2003 SP2, which has the same limits as XP. It looks like
Vista also has the same limits on actual heap sizes, but manages
Trevor Talbot wrote:
The question is where that's coming from. I wondered if it was
desktop heap originally, but there's no reason it should be using it,
and that seems to be precisely the difference between my system and
the others. Connections here are barely making a dent; at 490 there's
I wrote:
[ desktop heap usage ]
It could be that there's a significant difference between XP and 2003
in how that's handled though. I do have an XP SP2 machine here with
512MB RAM, and I'll try tests on it as soon as I can free up what it's
currently occupied with.
...yep, under XP I'm
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Kevin Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. And as Tom points out downthread, that shortcut probably doesn't
gain anything in the long run.
Considering how expensive updates are in PostgreSQL, I suspect that isn't
true.
However, the current behaviour does seem to be
Trevor Talbot wrote:
I wrote:
[ desktop heap usage ]
It could be that there's a significant difference between XP and 2003
in how that's handled though. I do have an XP SP2 machine here with
512MB RAM, and I'll try tests on it as soon as I can free up what it's
currently occupied with.
On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Kevin Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. And as Tom points out downthread, that shortcut probably
doesn't
gain anything in the long run.
Considering how expensive updates are in PostgreSQL, I suspect that
Hi there,
I am having some memory leak issues in a trigger library. I want to use the
valgrind tool to investigate the memory leak. Could
you please let me know how can i do this?
Thank you.
-Thanesh
Dave Page wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
The question is where that's coming from. I wondered if it was
desktop heap originally, but there's no reason it should be using it,
and that seems to be precisely the difference between my system and
the others. Connections here are barely making a
I'm trying install postgreSQL in an external HD, but I don't know how to
change the root directory.
By default the installation uses drive C:
Is it possible to change to F: (for example)?
Thanks in advance,
Josi Perez
Josi Perez wrote:
I'm trying install postgreSQL in an external HD, but I don't know how to
change the root directory.
By default the installation uses drive C:
Is it possible to change to F: (for example)?
Sure. Although you don't identify which version you are trying to
install or the
I have to PG servers, one ver. 8.1.9 and the other 8.2.4.
I was checking a query out and found that with the exact same DB (same
data in it) and the same query I get different plans, and significantly
higher time in 8.2:
On 8.1 I get:
test= explain analyze SELECT * FROM prestamos WHERE
Dear all,
I have the following problem: a compound search, involving 2 wildcarded
character search terms, in which one search term consists of Latin characters
and the other, of UTF-8 unicode Greek characters, fails. This is strange,
because similar searches in which both terms are either
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Pavel
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have to PG servers, one ver. 8.1.9 and the other 8.2.4.
I was checking a query out and found that with the exact same DB (same
data in it) and the same query I get different plans, and
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have the following problem: a compound search, involving 2 wildcarded
character search terms, in which one search term consists of Latin characters
and the other, of UTF-8 unicode Greek characters, fails. This is strange,
because similar searches
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to on.
Anything else?
--
21:50:04 up 2 days, 9:07, 0 users, load average: 0.92, 0.37, 0.18
-
PostgreSQL foreign keys won't enforce restrictions the way you want them to;
you'll have to use a trigger. And at that point, you might as well consider
alternative designs...
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
---(end of
All,
I'm trying to use the crypt and decrypt functions from contrib and have
installed them into my database. The definition for crypt seems to
require that I use BYTEA datatype to input the data I need to encrypt.
All of my data is either TEXT or VARCHAR, though and not BYTEA.
I was
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Magnus Hagander:
Oh, that's interesting. That's actually a sideeffect of us increasing
the stack size for the postgres.exe executable in order to work on other
things. By default, it burns 1MB/thread, but ours will do 4MB. Never
really thought of the problem that
* Magnus Hagander:
Oh, that's interesting. That's actually a sideeffect of us increasing
the stack size for the postgres.exe executable in order to work on other
things. By default, it burns 1MB/thread, but ours will do 4MB. Never
really thought of the problem that it'll run out of address
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/21/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried generating idle connections in an effort to reproduce
Laurent's problem, but I ran into a local limit instead: for each
backend, postmaster creates a thread and burns 4MB of its 2GB address
space. It fails
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to on.
Anything else?
shared_buffers
work_mem
effective_cache_size
Pavel
--
21:50:04 up 2
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Could you try a build without SSPI? It should be as simple as removing
the #define ENABLE_SSPI 1 from port/win32.h. I don't think you need to
touch the linker lines at all, actually, so try without first.
Nope, doesn't help - still using around 9.7KB per connection. Just
Tom,
Thanks. I am running:
Postgres 8.1.4
server_encoding UTF8
lc_collate en_GB.UTF-8
lc_ctype en_GB.UTF-8
Ben
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have the following problem: a compound search, involving 2
Tom,
To be more precise, the mixed queries fail in that they return hits of 0
rows, when they should return more than 0 rows.
Ben
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have the following problem: a compound search,
Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Could you try a build without SSPI? It should be as simple as removing
the #define ENABLE_SSPI 1 from port/win32.h. I don't think you need to
touch the linker lines at all, actually, so try without first.
Nope, doesn't help - still using around 9.7KB
On 10/22/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
I'd probably take the approach of combining win32_waitpid() and
threads. You'd end up with 1 thread per 64 backends; when something
interesting happens the thread could push the info onto a queue, which
the new
Dave Page wrote:
So the only other changes I can think of that might affect things are
the VC++ build or the shared memory changes, though I can't see why they
would cause problems offhand. I'll go try a mingw build...
mingw build of stock 8.3b1, no configure options specified at all,
consumes
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yeah, it could be that the newer MSVCRT files do something we don't
like.. Other than that, did we upgrade to a different version of some of
our dependents?
Most of them - but my test build is without any of them:
our $config = {
asserts=1, #
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing ourselves.
Should be rather trivial to do.
How
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to on.
Anything else?
shared_buffers
work_mem
effective_cache_size
Pavel
Well, the cost_* values
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing ourselves.
Should be rather
On 10/22/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Postgres 8.1.4
server_encoding UTF8
lc_collate en_GB.UTF-8
lc_ctype en_GB.UTF-8
Hmph, nothing strange-looking there. I tried to reproduce the problem
here, without success. Now I was using 8.1.10 on Linux (I gather your
platform is not Linux from
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to on.
Anything else?
shared_buffers
8.1:
16000
8.2:
400MB
work_mem
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom,
Thanks. I am running:
Postgres 8.1.4
server_encoding UTF8
lc_collate en_GB.UTF-8
lc_ctype en_GB.UTF-8
Hm, I wonder what the en_GB locale on your machine does when it sees
characters unused in English such as Greek characters. Is this
Sascha Bohnenkamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tryed to use large-object and saw some 'toast' while reading the
documentation :)
How do i use it?
You generally merely need to add data to your tables; if columns are
large enough, then PostgreSQL will consider TOASTing them without you
needing
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're not talking about the backends, we're talking about the backend
waiter threads whose sole purpose is to wait for a backend to die and
then raise a signal when it does.
Oh, OK, I had not twigged to exactly what the threads were being used
for.
Dear Greg, Tom,
I AM in fact running the db on Linux. Redhat 9. Are the encoding parameters
wrong for Linux?
I am sending the queries via JDBC from a windows machine. But I have also
gotten the same results via psql when sending the queries from one local redhat
9 box to the redhat 9 database
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to
on.
Anything else?
Tomas Vondra wrote:
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set
to on.
Anything else?
shared_buffers
work_mem
effective_cache_size
Pavel
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2007/10/22, Martin Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am unsure, did you check config values?
Don't know which ones you are talking about, but all enable_* are set to on.
Anything
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I AM in fact running the db on Linux. Redhat 9. Are the encoding parameters
wrong for Linux?
Hmm ... RH 9 is awfully old. It's at least conceivable that you're
getting bit by some glibc bug. However, if these are just plain LIKE
calls and not ILIKE
On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ralph Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/lib/postgresql/7.4/bin$ psql -U
airburst airburst -p 5433
I get:
psql: FATAL: IDENT authentication failed for user airburst
This is not surprising, seeing that you're
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Benjamin Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Postgres 8.1.4
server_encoding UTF8
lc_collate en_GB.UTF-8
lc_ctype en_GB.UTF-8
Hmph, nothing strange-looking there. I tried to reproduce the problem
here, without success. Now I was using 8.1.10 on Linux (I
On 10/22/07, Daniel Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PostgreSQL Conference Fall 2007 was informative, fun, and well-executed.
Thanks to Selena Deckelmann, Joshua Drake, and everyone else who made it
happen. Here are my photos of the event:
http://db.endpoint.com/pgcon07/
Now if one could
On 23/10/2007 01:06, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
Now if one could put names to those faces ... :}
+1 :-)
Ray.
---
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 22 October 2007 5:06 pm, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 10/22/07, Daniel Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PostgreSQL Conference Fall 2007 was informative, fun, and
well-executed. Thanks to Selena Deckelmann, Joshua Drake, and everyone
else who made it happen. Here are my photos
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmph, nothing strange-looking there. I tried to reproduce the problem
here, without success. Now I was using 8.1.10 on Linux (I gather your
platform is not Linux from the spelling of the locale names)
Really? On my
On Oct 21, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
Rajarshi Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The table itself is about 10M rows corresponding to 14GB.
Each row is on average 1.4kB ?
Yes, though some rows may 10's of Kb
Perhaps you should send more details of the
table definition and the
On 10/23/07, Adrian Klaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I figured the name tags took care of that.
Some of them I can't decipher, on several photos they're not visible at all...
Wish I had 20/20 vision. :}
Adrian Klaver
Cheers,
Andrej
--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :}
I have two different machines that run pg_dump in a batch file. One prompts
for a password and the other one does not. I am running version 8.1 on
Windows XP. Both machines have a pgpass.conf file in the right place. The
Administrator user runs the batch file. How do I get pg_dump to run without
76 matches
Mail list logo
