n milli right ?
> 2. the query takes in reality much longer than 1 second.
>
> In short, it feels like something is very wrong here (i tried vacuum
> analyze and it didn't do much diff).
> any ideas ?
You need an index on (word1, wor
On linux the filesystem cache will gobble them up, which means indirectly
pgsql profits as well (assuming no other apps poison the fs cache).
jan
--
----------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khazad! Kh
have seen this.
2. No solutions.
3. The server message appears to indicate an unhandled WSAEWOULDBLOCK winsock
error on recv(), which MSDN said is to be expected and should be retried.
Is this a known bug?
jan
--
--
Jan de Visser
?
jan
On Monday 06 March 2006 09:38, Jan de Visser wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While doing performance tests on Windows Server 2003 we observed to
> following two problems.
>
> Environment: J2EE application running in JBoss application server, against
> pgsql 8.1 database. Load is
On Thursday 09 March 2006 15:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan de Visser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Furtermore, it does not happen on Linux machines, both single CPU and
> > dual CPU, nor on single CPU windows machines. We can only reproduce on a
> > dual CPU windows mach
)
With thanks to Magnus Hagander for the Process Explorer hint.
jan
--
--------------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baru
.0 or 8.1? There have been some significant changes
> in the handling of the signals between the two...
This is 8.1.3 on Windows 2003 Server. Also reproduced on 8.1.0 and 8.1.1 (also
on 2K3).
>
> //Magnus
jan
--
On Friday 10 March 2006 09:03, Jan de Visser wrote:
> On Friday 10 March 2006 04:20, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to get a stack trace from the stuck process?
> > >
> > > I dunno
> > >
> > > > if you've got anything gdb-e
On Friday 10 March 2006 09:32, Jan de Visser wrote:
> > > Actually, stack2 looks very interesting. Does it "stay stuck" in
> > > pg_queue_signal? That's really not supposed to happen.
> >
> > Yes it does.
>
> An update on that: There is actual
whereas before it would lock up within 5mins.
So I think they broke something.
jan
--
--------------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khaza
.
As a BTW: I reinstalled SP1 and turned stats collection off. That also seems
to work, but is not really a solution since we want to use autovacuuming.
>
> //Magnus
jan
--
--
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu
On Friday 10 March 2006 14:27, Jan de Visser wrote:
> As a BTW: I reinstalled SP1 and turned stats collection off. That also
> seems to work, but is not really a solution since we want to use
> autovacuuming.
I lied. I hangs now. Just takes a lot longe
.
Anybody any ideas?
Thanks,
jan
--
----------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!
--
---(end of broadcast)--
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 18:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:39 -0500, Jan de Visser wrote:
> > After fixing the hanging problems I reported here earlier (by
> > uninstalling W2K3 SP1), I'm running into another weird one.
> >
> > After doin
ve had previous correspondence about this with Magnus (search -general
and -hackers). If you uninstall SP1 the problem goes away. We played a bit
with potential fixes but didn't find any.
jan
--
--
gt; over here to help?
>
> There is no SP2 for Windows 2003.
That's what I thought. Jim confused me there for a minute.
>
> Have you tried this with latest-and-greatest CVS HEAD? Meaning with the
> new semaphore code that was committed a couple of days ago?
No I h
or a vacuum,
(autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 1000, autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 500).
>
> Andrus.
jan
>
>
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
-
or so?
jan
--
----------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!
--
---(end o
239 - 10th Ave. SE
> Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
>
> http://www.clickspace.com
>
> On May 31, 2006, at 6:34 AM, Jan de Visser wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:29, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> >> We'll probably have to write a process to update the click_count from
> >
On 12/20/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, I'm not even sure if those got applied or were just Tom hacking
> > in the basement or, heck, my fevered imagination. :)
>
> For the record, I hack in the attic ... or what I tell the IRS is my
On 5/14/08, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> > If neither of the bits is set, then the transaction is either in progress
> (which you can check by examining the list of running transactions in shared
> memory) or your process is the first one
On Thursday 15 May 2008 03:02:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jan de Visser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Obviously, this issue is tied to the slow count(*) one, as I found out
> > the hard way. Consider the following scenario:
> > * Insert row
> > * Update
On Monday 23 June 2008 07:06:54 bijayant kumar wrote:
> Hello to list,
>
> We have a CentOS-5 server with postgresql-8.1.8 installed. I am struggling
> with postgresql performance. Any query say select * from tablename takes
> 10-15 mins to give the output, and while executing the query system load
23 matches
Mail list logo
