Re: [HACKERS] CREATE DATABASE on the heap with PostgreSQL?
May Users forcely assign a table / database / cluster storage in RAM purely ? or a in-directly-way , like making a RAM-Disk-Device and assign this device as a postgreSQL cluster? I think this feature will push a lot High-Performance usage , any suggestion ? jihuang Gaetano Mendola wrote: Albretch wrote: After RTFM and googling for this piece of info, I think PostgreSQL has no such a feature. Why not? . Isn't RAM cheap enough nowadays? RAM is indeed so cheap that you could design diskless combinations of OS + firewall + web servers entirely running off RAM. Anything needing persistence you will send to the backend DB then . Granted, coding a small Data Structure with the exact functionality you need will do exactly this keeping the table's data on the heap. But why doing this if this is what DBMS have been designed for in the first place? And also, each custom coded DB functionality will have to be maintaned. Is there any way or at least elegant hack to do this? I don't see a technically convincing explanation to what could be a design decision, could you explain to me the rationale behind it, if any? If you access a table more frequently then other and you have enough RAM your OS will mantain that table on RAM, don't you think ? BTW if you trust on your UPS I'm sure you are able to create a RAM disk and place that table in RAM. Regards Gaetano Mendola ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: heapgettup: failed ReadBuffer
Thanks for your real-time respone! the problem was sloved after I upgrade the postgreSQL from 7.3.4 to 7.4.2. by the way, is there any bug-tracking website for postgreSQL ? I follow the [HOMEPAGE] - [DEVELOPERS] -find nothing relative to bugzilla-like items, follow the [GBROG] - it's PostgreSQL related projects , but without PostgreSQL itself ? let me show a advertisement... quote from ORELLY's Developer Weblogs RT foundry is being developed in Taiwan as part of the Open Foundry Project, which is aimed at encouraging for FS/OSS development in Taiwan. The foundry is a SF-like, expect using better technologies (RT for bug/request tracking, subversion for source control, etc ... the following link is the issue and comments log for sloving this problem I said. http://rt.openfoundry.org/Foundry/Project/Tracker/Display.html?Queue=90id=2653 there are some chinese characters mixed, but I just wanna to show that host a dedicate issue/bug tracking system may improve a software project evloution. June-Yen Tom Lane wrote: jihuang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I put 36+ rows in a table , and now any select , update , analyze ... command fail. the log shows ERROR: heapgettup: failed ReadBuffer, What Postgres version is this? AFAICS that error has been impossible for quite some time ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
[HACKERS] ERROR: heapgettup: failed ReadBuffer
I put 36+ rows in a table , and now any select , update , analyze ... command fail. the log shows ERROR: heapgettup: failed ReadBuffer, but any INSERT sql command success. the table schema is row| type | modifiers ---+-+-- test_id | integer | not null snapshot | timestamp without time zone | ip_client | inet| ip_server | inet| conn_time | integer | response_time | integer | response_head | character varying | Check constraints: invalid_conn_time CHECK (conn_time = 0) invalid_resp_time CHECK (response_time = 0) I didn't create any index, any one know why or suggestion to save the un-readable database? or anything I mis-configuration ?? Thanks for your help. June-Yen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[HACKERS] FYI , Intel CC and PostgreSQL , benchmark by pgsql
Hi, I have a new server and some time to do an interesting simple benchmark. Compile PostgreSQL 7.4.1R by gcc3.2 and Intel CC 8.0 , and use pgbench to evaluate any difference.. Here is the result. -- CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.06GHz (3052.79-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX ,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Hyperthreading: 2 logical CPUs real memory = 3221200896 (3071 MB) avail memory = 3130855424 (2985 MB) FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE-p11 /usr/local/intel_cc_80/bin/icc -V Intel(R) C++ Compiler for 32-bit applications, Version 8.0 Build 20031211Z Package ID: l_cc_p_8.0.055_pe057 Copyright (C) 1985-2003 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY gcc -v Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.2.2 [FreeBSD] 20030205 (release) Application: PostgreSQL 7.4.1 Benchmark: pgbench Result : 1. IntelCC ( use ports/database/postgresql7 , default ) ./pgbench -U pgsql -c 30 test starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 1 number of clients: 30 number of transactions per client: 10 number of transactions actually processed: 300/300 tps = 34.975026 (including connections establishing) tps = 35.550815 (excluding connections establishing) 2. GNU cc( use ports/database/postgresql7 , default ) ./pgbench -U pgsql -c 30 test starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 1 number of clients: 30 number of transactions per client: 10 number of transactions actually processed: 300/300 tps = 38.968321 (including connections establishing) tps = 39.707451 (excluding connections establishing) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
