Simon,
Use Case: VLDB with tons of (now) read only data, some not. Data needs
to be accessible, but data itself is rarely touched, allowing storage
costs to be minimised via a storage hierarchy of progressively cheaper
storage.
There's actually 2 cases to optimize for:
1)
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 20:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon,
Use Case: VLDB with tons of (now) read only data, some not. Data needs
to be accessible, but data itself is rarely touched, allowing storage
costs to be minimised via a storage hierarchy of progressively cheaper
storage.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:30:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Trevor Talbot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/11/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dunno anything about how to fix the real problem (what's winsock error
10004?),
WSAEINTR, A blocking operation was interrupted by a call to
Hi,
Le mercredi 12 décembre 2007, Josh Berkus a écrit :
I'm curious what you feel is missing that pgloader doesn't fill that
requirement: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgloader/
Because pgloader is implemented in middleware, it carries a very high
overhead if you have bad rows. As little
Bruce,
in
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/textsearch-dictionaries.html#TEXTSEARCH-THESAURUS
I think
ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION russian
ADD MAPPING FOR asciiword, asciihword, hword_asciipart WITH
thesaurus_simple;
should be
ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION russian
There are a number of nasty
limitations for partitions currently (not the least of which is that
real
uniqueness guarantees are impractical),
Just to add an other opinion to this statement, because it imho sounds
overly
pessimistic:
Uniqueness is currently perfectly practical, when the
Getting partitioning/read-only right will allow 70+TB of that to be on
tape or similar, which with compression can be reduced to maybe 20TB?
I
don't want to promise any particular compression ratio, but it will
make
a substantial difference, as I'm sure you realise.
Wouldn't one very
Consider a situation where there's an index on x,y and we're processing a
where clause like:
WHERE x IN (1,2,3,4,5) AND y IN ('A','B','C','D')
Assuming we use the index we loop through doing an index lookup for every
combination of the two (generated) arrays. Except if I understand
Hi,
How hard/generally useful would it be to allow the target of a foreign
key to be on a set of columns where only a subset of them actually have
a unique constraint. For example:
CREATE TABLE base (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
type INTEGER NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 15:31 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon, we should start a VLDB-Postgres developer wiki page.
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/DataWarehousing
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:14:43PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Uniqueness is currently perfectly practical, when the unique index
contains
the column[s] that is/are used in a non overlapping partitioning scheme.
Well, yes, assuming you have no bugs. Part of the reason I want the
Hello
documentation fix.
result of convert_to is bytea, not text.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
*** ./src/sgml/func.sgml.orig 2007-12-12 17:18:55.0 +0100
--- ./src/sgml/func.sgml 2007-12-12 17:19:56.0 +0100
***
*** 1386,1392
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:58:11PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Wouldn't one very substantial requirement of such storage be to
have it independent of db version, or even db product? Keeping
old hardware and software around can be quite expensive.
This was one of the explicit
test
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Hi,
Josh Berkus wrote:
Here's the other VLDB features we're missing:
Parallel Query
Uh.. this only makes sense in a distributed database, no? I've thought
about parallel querying on top of Postgres-R. Does it make sense
implementing some form of parallel querying apart from the
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:22 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:14:43PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Uniqueness is currently perfectly practical, when the unique index
contains
the column[s] that is/are used in a non overlapping partitioning scheme.
Well,
Markus,
Parallel Query
Uh.. this only makes sense in a distributed database, no? I've thought
about parallel querying on top of Postgres-R. Does it make sense
implementing some form of parallel querying apart from the distribution
or replication engine?
Sure. Imagine you have a 5TB
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:48 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Andrew,
The requirement was, anyway, that we be able to read old versions of
archived rows. IIRC there was an implementation choice, whether we would
_never_ allow such rows to be SET READ WRITE or whether they'd be
immediately
Andrew,
The requirement was, anyway, that we be able to read old versions of
archived rows. IIRC there was an implementation choice, whether we would
_never_ allow such rows to be SET READ WRITE or whether they'd be
immediately upgraded to the present format on SET READ WRITE.
Well, in
Hi Josh,
Josh Berkus wrote:
Sure. Imagine you have a 5TB database on a machine with 8 cores and only one
concurrent user. You'd like to have 1 core doing I/O, and say 4-5 cores
dividing the scan and join processing into 4-5 chunks.
Ah, right, thank for enlightenment. Heck, I'm definitely
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
test
Does anybody see any value in having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be an alias
for pgsql-hackers?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/
Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house
PhD theses. (Joey Hellerstein, SIGMOD
On Dec 12, 2007 11:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
test
Does anybody see any value in having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be an alias
for pgsql-hackers?
No, but I see some mild irritation in having to modify my rules to tag a
second address with the
Good Day,
I recently posted a message here (
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00340.php) that the
trigger does not work as it should from time to time. Now the trigger works
on C, before It was on TCL and it had the same problem.
As the trigger works all right in 99.999 %
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:07:57 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to be the only one saying global indexes are bad, so if people
that want them can do the math and honestly say they want them, then I
will listen.
global indexes are
Simon,
Who was working on it?
Zdenec and Dhanaraj from Sun, and someone from EDB (I'm not sure who, maybe
Korry?). Unfortunately, both companies have shifted staff around and we need
to re-start work.
Of course, if hackers other than those from EDB Sun want to attack the
problem, the more
Here is our updated PGparam extension to the libpq api:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00356.php
We have a patch implementing the following which we are cleaning up. We
are also kicking around some ideas for arrays and possibly composite
types which we may consider if
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:26:16PM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Isn't Gavin Sherry working on this? Haven't read anything from him
lately...
Me neither. Swallowed by Greenplum and France.
Hm.. good for him, I guess!
Yes, I'm around -- just extremely busy with a big release at
Nikolay Grebnev wrote:
Good Day,
I recently posted a message here
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00340.php)
that the trigger does not work as it should from time to time. Now the
trigger works on C, before It was on TCL and it had the same problem.
As the trigger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greenplum as well as other Real Life stuff.
For those of us here who have no idea what you are talking about can
you define what Real Life is like?
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
From: Dann Corbit
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:58 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Current code for function j2date does not have the
same correct dynamic range as older code.
It may not matter to the PostgreSQL group, since nothing goes
wrong until the year is 1,465,002 or
During recovery procedures, there is a step that says
If you didn't archive pg_xlog/ at all, then recreate it, and be sure to
recreate the subdirectory pg_xlog/archive_status/ as well.
If you forget to do this, you may not realise until the recovering
server comes up and tries writing to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:28:58 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could check this just as the server comes up and then re-create it
if necessary. So we have one less step in the process to remember.
Existing scripts which perform this
All,
Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
with Load Distributed Checkpoint, which is what we've been calling it
for 6 months?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
Simon Riggs wrote:
We could check this just as the server comes up and then re-create it if
necessary. So we have one less step in the process to remember. Existing
scripts which perform this automatically will not need changing.
Oh please yes
--
Peter Eisentraut
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:07:57PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Enforcing uniqueness with a global index has a number of disadvantages.
This is why I was trying to talk about constraints rather than global
indexes. Just because we happen to implement them that way today does not
mean that such
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Markus,
Parallel Query
Uh.. this only makes sense in a distributed database, no? I've thought
about parallel querying on top of Postgres-R. Does it make sense
implementing some form of parallel querying apart from the distribution
or replication
Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
with Load Distributed Checkpoint, which is what we've been calling it
for 6 months?
There was nothing *wrong*
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:
What's *wrong* with Load Distributed Checkpoint, which is what we've
been calling it for 6 months?
One issue was that distributed has some association with distributed
computing, which isn't actually the case. Spread is also more
descriptive of what
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/textsearch-dictionaries.html#TEXTSEARCH-THESAURUS
I think
ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION russian
ADD MAPPING FOR asciiword, asciihword, hword_asciipart WITH
thesaurus_simple;
should be
ALTER TEXT
Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
with Load Distributed Checkpoint, which is what we've been calling it
for 6 months?
Are you saying the PR was 'string freezed' before rc1?
40 matches
Mail list logo
