Hi.
> Good point. I saw the bad behavior on DBT-3 (TPC-H) benchmark before.
> Loss-less bitmap scan was faster than seq Scan,
> but lossy bitmap scan was slower than seq Scan:
Thank you.
> Sure, we need it! Also, I hope some methods to determine whether the
> bitmap scan was lossy or not, and ho
higepon wrote:
> I found the current planner doesn't care about "lossy mode" on Bitmap Scan.
Good point. I saw the bad behavior on DBT-3 (TPC-H) benchmark before.
Loss-less bitmap scan was faster than seq Scan,
but lossy bitmap scan was slower than seq Scan:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM t
Hi.
I found the current planner doesn't care about "lossy mode" on Bitmap Scan.
I think costs of following two plans are equal now.
(a) Having enough work_mem => normal Bitmap Scan.
(b) Having less work_mem than estimated rows => Bitmap Scan with "lossy mode".
Slower than (a).
So, sometimes
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
No, no crash is involved. Just a normal server shutdown and start:
1. Server shutdown is initiated
2. A shutdown checkpoint is recorded at XLOG point 1234, redo ptr is
also 1234.
3. A XLOG_SWITCH record is written at 1235, right after the checkpo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:28:45AM -0700, Sam Halliday wrote:
>
>
> Tomas Zerolo wrote:
> >
> >> If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
> >> drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
2009/4/28 Kevin Grittner :
> "A.M." wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>> Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
transient data such
2009/4/27 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
>>> I am thinking about global temp tables.
>>>
>>
>> These would have some value to us.
>> In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard. You
>> have a permanent definition of the schema,
On Apr 27, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
"A.M." wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
transient dat
"A.M." wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
>>> When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data
>>> which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
>>> transient data such as web session data where wri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
transient data such as web
"A.M." wrote:
> When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data
> which are shared among sessions?
Well, that would certainly be far different from what the standard
calls a temporary table of any flavor. In the standard all temporary
tables are restricted to a single connecti
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
No, no crash is involved. Just a normal server shutdown and start:
1. Server shutdown is initiated
2. A shutdown checkpoint is recorded at XLOG point 1234, redo ptr is
also 1234.
3. A XLOG_SWITCH record is written at 1235, right after the checkpoint
record.
4. The la
Hi,
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer "global" temporary tables with data which
are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for transient data
such as web session data where writing to the WAL is a waste. (On DB
startup, the tables would simply be empty.)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am thinking about global temp tables. One possible solution is
creating global temporary table like normal table and in planner stage
check u
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Or perhaps Pavel doesn't really mean "global" as the term is used
> in Postgres (c.f. the pg_database table)?
I'd bet that he doesn't. He's taking terminology from the standard,
where it means "not limited to one SQL-client module". It just means
it is available as l
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am thinking about global temp tables.
These would have some value to us.
In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard.
You have a permanent definition of the schema, but the table is
materialized as a temporary
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am thinking about global temp tables.
These would have some value to us.
In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard.
You have a permanent definition of the schema, but the table is
materialized as a temporary table on reference by any connec
Hello
I am thinking about global temp tables. One possible solution is
creating global temporary table like normal table and in planner stage
check using this table. When some global temporary table is detected,
then real temporary table is created and used in execution plan. It's
like:
CREATE GL
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Tab completion has never been perfect. I don't think beta is the
> > best time to be improving it so much. I think a small patch that
> > just adds "\dfa", "\dfw" and appropriate pattern completions (i.e.
>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > It seems like rather a large change to be making in beta. Can
> > > you make a small patch that fixes the immediate problem, and
> > > leave
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I notice this has gone unremarked
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/oracle_ibm_enterprisedb_compatibility/
>
> Looking at the IBM DB2 press release
> http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/27279.wss
> shows this quote
>
Why
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It seems like rather a large change to be making in beta. Can you
> > make a small patch that fixes the immediate problem, and leave the
> > refactoring for 8.5?
>
> The hack I've come up with short of the refact
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > I have a handle on the problem, which is that the tab completion
> > code assumes, wrongly, that it only needs to deal with fixed
> > strings. It's actually been false for some time in the \div case,
> > for exam
David Fetter writes:
> I have a handle on the problem, which is that the tab completion code
> assumes, wrongly, that it only needs to deal with fixed strings. It's
> actually been false for some time in the \div case, for example. The
> S option has shattered the fixed-string assumption.
Check
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:39:33AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > It also seems like we're missing tab completion support for this.
> >
> > Oops. Working on that now.
>
> Any luck with this?
I have
I think Sam Mason's proposal of hacking pg-pool sounds feasible. Is
there any way to create a formal RFE for this? Is anybody interested
in implementing this?
On 27 Apr 2009, at 13:55, Sam Mason wrote:
One possible arrangement would be if each user/encryption key had its
own database cluster
2009/4/28 Tom Lane
> Well, you've omitted showing us the code where the problem is likely to
> be, but I am kinda thinking that you've shot yourself in the foot by
> trying to represent your special ordering clause as a simple constant.
> The planner is quite smart enough to throw away "order by
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Anton Egorov escribió:
>> I need to recover deleted rows from table. After I delete those rows I
>> stopped postgres immediately and create tar archive of database. I found
>> solution http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00965.php,
>> but is there anoth
I notice this has gone unremarked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/oracle_ibm_enterprisedb_compatibility/
Looking at the IBM DB2 press release
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/27279.wss
shows this quote
<>
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training,
hi,
I want to attach to acced the shared memory
therefore I must attaches oneself it
but how do?
thanks
Anton Egorov escribió:
> Hi!
>
> I need to recover deleted rows from table. After I delete those rows I
> stopped postgres immediately and create tar archive of database. I found
> solution http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00965.php,
> but is there another (easyer) way to do
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > It also seems like we're missing tab completion support for this.
>
> Oops. Working on that now.
Any luck with this?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
Postgre
Werner Echezuria writes:
> Later in planner.c on grouping_planner function I do something like this:
Well, you've omitted showing us the code where the problem is likely to
be, but I am kinda thinking that you've shot yourself in the foot by
trying to represent your special ordering clause as a s
On 27 Apr 2009, at 13:55, Sam Mason wrote:
Allowing multiple users/encryption keys access the same database seems
problematic; how would you allow catalogue access and enforce unique
or
other constraints if the server couldn't look to see what's there.
Not
sure what you're after here though
Hi,
Thanks for the report!
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
wrote:
> Upon applying synchronous replication patch and subsequent compilation
> of psqlODBC sources will lead to compilation errors.
> As a workaround users can compile the psqlODBC sources using the
>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
>
> It's not safe to wr
Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL fr
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:24:55AM +0100, Sam Halliday wrote:
> Not looking for a Windows solution. Must be cross platform and work
> for headless machines, laptops and desktops. Encrypted drive solutions
> fall short of these requirements. Other considerations which rule out
> encrypted driv
Well, I'm in a project called PostgreSQLf and we're trying to include fuzzy
logic inside PostgreSQL. Now I've been thinking this is getting too hard, do
you know if I can just sort the results with something like this :
Sort(ResultSlot,column)?, I mean without the Order By clause?
2009/4/28 Martij
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
>>> does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL fro
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL from the checkpoint
redo point, which is just before the XLOG_SWITCH record, and will ov
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
> does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL from the checkpoint
> redo point, which is just before the XLOG_SWITCH record, and will overwrite
> i
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:28:45AM -0700, Sam Halliday wrote:
> Tomas Zerolo wrote:
> >
> >> If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
> >> drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
>
> There is a difference between "it's possible" an
Tomas Zerolo wrote:
>
>> If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
>> drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
>
> There definitely is. We even need more flexibility: prompt for
> credentials at the time of *mounting* a secured par
Not looking for a Windows solution. Must be cross platform and work
for headless machines, laptops and desktops. Encrypted drive solutions
fall short of these requirements. Other considerations which rule out
encrypted drives have been discussed earlier in the thread.
For the record, I have
Postgresql 8.4 beta1 does not compile in win-XP3 because of the
already reported bug (#4662)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-04/msg00142.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00367.php
The patch mentioned in those posts fixed the problem for me
Hernán J. Gonzá
46 matches
Mail list logo
