Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

On 11/09/10 11:22 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote: Do both machines have similar hardware? If the Linux machine has a proper NIC (intel, for example) while the Windows machine has a poor NIC (Realtek!), then of course you would get differences in performance. I'm not saying Microsofts network stack is

Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

Op 10-11-10 08:22, Alban Hertroys schreef: On 10 Nov 2010, at 5:19, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote: Further testing shows it is windows networking causing the issue. Copying files to and from the server is 5 to 6 times slower on a Windows client compared to the Linux client. The issue is not specific

Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

On 10 Nov 2010, at 5:19, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote: > Further testing shows it is windows networking causing the issue. > Copying files to and from the server is 5 to 6 times slower on a > Windows client compared to the Linux client. > > The issue is not specific to libpq. Do both machines have si

Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

On 11/09/10 9:53 PM, Dann Corbit wrote: Check your Nagle setting. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138831 that link works for SNA Server, which is some real obscure stuff, but not the general case try this, http://www.speedguide.net/articles/windows-2kxp-more-tweaks-158 where it says _Gaming

Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general- > ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Rob Brown-Bayliss > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:20 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linu

Re: [GENERAL] Libpq is very slow on windows but fast on linux.

Further testing shows it is windows networking causing the issue. Copying files to and from the server is 5 to 6 times slower on a Windows client compared to the Linux client. The issue is not specific to libpq. -- Rob -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To mak

Re: [GENERAL] Using EXCLUDE in 9.0 with <> operator ...

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 13:45 +1300, Derek Harland wrote: > Theoretically the following would be nice if it worked > > EXCLUDE (X WITH =, Y WITH <>) > > but it complains that > > ERROR: operator <>(text,text) is not a member of operator family > "text_ops" > > because the Btree index method

[GENERAL] Using EXCLUDE in 9.0 with <> operator ...

Hallo all, I have a question about Exclusion constraints in 9.0: * Lets say I have a table with two columns X and Y (of type varchar or int) * Is there any way I can add add an EXCLUDE constraint that says, for each value of X the values of Y must be the same. * So the following rows are ok:

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 11/9/2010 5:05 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: Note that you're likely to get FAR more out of processor affinity with multiple NICs assigned each to its own core / set of cores that share L3 cache and such.Having the nics and maybe RAID controllers and / or fibre channel cards etc on their own se

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM, David Boreham wrote: > > I don't think you should be looking at process partitioning and core > affinity unless you have already proved that > you have processes that don't scale over the cores you have, to deliver the > throughput you need. Note that you're likely

Re: [GENERAL] Thoughts on a surrogate key lookup function?

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Nick wrote: > Merlin, thanks for the reply. Yes, using email_addresses was a very > silly example. Maybe the following is a better example... > > CREATE TABLE first_names (id INT, first_name VARCHAR); > ALTER TABLE first_names ADD CONSTRAINT first_names_pkey PRIMARY

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 11/9/2010 11:36 AM, Sandeep Srinivasa wrote: If it is independent of the OS, then how does one go about tuning it. Consider this - I get a 12 core server on which I want multiple webserver instances + DB. Can one create CPU pools (say core 1,2,3 for webservers, 4,5,6,7 for DB, etc.) ? I

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Sandeep Srinivasa Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:10 AM To: Lincoln Yeoh Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ? hi, I am the OP. With due respect to

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Scott Marlowe writes: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: >> Ownership of the copyright is owned by whoever made the contribution, and >> any competent version control system will give you the list of contributions >> (and therefore contributors). If a contribution was made in

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 09 Nov 2010, at 7:30 PM, David Boreham wrote: > >> Sorry but this is 100% not true. It may be true for a 3rd party (you >> release something under the GPL, I enhance it, therefore I am required to >> release my enhancement under the GPL).

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 09 Nov 2010, at 7:30 PM, David Boreham wrote: Sorry but this is 100% not true. It may be true for a 3rd party (you release something under the GPL, I enhance it, therefore I am required to release my enhancement under the GPL). But Oracle owns the copyright to the MySql code and therefor

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Also there's the strange and mysterious valley group-think syndrome. I've seen this with several products/technologies over the years. I suspect it comes from the VCs, but I'm not sure. The latest example is "you should be using EC2". There always follows a discussion where I can present 50 concr

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf > Of Tom Lane > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:55 AM > To: Vick Khera > Cc: Scott Ribe; Allan Kamau; pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why facebo

Re: [GENERAL] I guess I'm missing something here WRT FOUND

Ralph Smith writes: > Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of > 'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'. > > The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets > inserted. > I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would > think. (Ple

[Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] I guess I'm missing something here WRT FOUND]

Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of 'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'. The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets inserted. I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would think. --

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Sandeep Srinivasa wrote: > hi, >    I am the OP. > With due respect to everyone (and sincere apologies to Richard Broersma), my > intention was not to create a thread about MySQL/Oracle's business > practices. Hehe, we head off on tangents. It's common, don't wor

Re: [GENERAL] I guess I'm missing something here WRT FOUND

Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of 'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'. The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets inserted. I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would think. ---

Re: [GENERAL] REINDEX requirement?

> -Original Message- > From: AI Rumman [mailto:rumman...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:26 AM > To: pgsql-general General > Subject: REINDEX requirement? > > How do I know that index require REINDEX? > > Look at the results of pgstatindex(...) function for specific

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM, David Boreham wrote: > > > Hmm...typically multi-core scaling issues are in the area of memory > contention and cache coherence (and therefore are for the most part not > dependent on the OS and its scheduler). If it is independent of the OS, then how does one go

Re: [GENERAL] [JDBC] psqlexception syntax error at or near "$"

[Please keep the list copied and please don't top-post.] [Also, this thread really belongs on pgsql-general or pgsql-novice; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with JDBC, so I'm blind copying the JDBC list and posting to general to move it.] Steven Dahlin wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>>

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 11/9/2010 11:10 AM, Sandeep Srinivasa wrote: It was about the technical discussion on Highscalability - I have been trying to wrap my head around the concept of multiple core scaling for Postgres, especially beyond 8 core (like Scott's Magny Coeurs example). My doubt arises from whether Pos

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

hi, I am the OP. With due respect to everyone (and sincere apologies to Richard Broersma), my intention was not to create a thread about MySQL/Oracle's business practices. It was about the technical discussion on Highscalability - I have been trying to wrap my head around the concept of multip

Re: [GENERAL] Porting from MS Access 2007 to PostgreSQL

On Monday 08 November 2010 8:22:51 pm Victor Hooi wrote: > Hi, > > Disclaimer: Not a DBA, nor I am not a DB guy, so please excuse any > ignorance in the below. > > *4. MS Access to Postgres* > > Anyhow, somebody else suggested it might be better to just go straight from > the original MS Access da

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql scalability issue

On 11/08/10 16:33, umut orhan wrote: > Hi all, > > > I've collected some interesting results during my experiments which I > couldn't > figure out the reason behind them and need your assistance. > > I'm running PostgreSQL 9.0 on a quad-core machine having two level on-chip > cache > hierarc

Re: [GENERAL] Porting from MS Access 2007 to PostgreSQL

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Arnaud Lesauvage wrote: > I can't really give you any advice about this, but we kept using Access as > our Frontend and everything runs fine. > You'll just have to make sure that you have read about the 'boolean <-> > integer' problem. This article is a nice start

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

David Boreham writes: > In addition to the license a product is currently available under, > you need to also consider who owns its copyright; who owns > its test suite (which may not be open source at all); who > employs all the people who understand the code and who owns > the trademarks that id

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Andy wrote: > Not true. > > As a condition of getting European Commission's approval of its acquisition > of Sun/MySQL, Oracle had to agree to continue the GPL release. > > And there are non-Oracle upgrades from Google, facebook, Percona, etc. So no > one is behol

Re: [GENERAL] Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jason Long wrote: > Every night when there is no activity I do a full vacuum, a reindex, and > then dump a nightly backup. > > Is this optimal with regards to performance?  autovacuum is set to the > default. In the general case this seems way overkill. Do you suf

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 11/9/2010 10:45 AM, Andy wrote: As a condition of getting European Commission's approval of its acquisition of Sun/MySQL, Oracle had to agree to continue the GPL release. In case anyone is interested in what specifically Oracle agreed to do, this is the text from the decision (they agreed

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

At 12:24 PM 11/9/2010, Sandeep Srinivasa wrote: There was an interesting post today on highscalability - http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/4/facebook-at-13-million-queries-per-second

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Not true. As a condition of getting European Commission's approval of its acquisition of Sun/MySQL, Oracle had to agree to continue the GPL release. And there are non-Oracle upgrades from Google, facebook, Percona, etc. So no one is beholden to Oracle. --- On Tue, 11/9/10, Dave Page wrote: >

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Andy wrote: > Any upgrades that are based on the MySQL source code will be legally required > to be released under GPL too. > > That's the beauty of GPL. This isn't entirely true. Oracle owns all copyrights to mysql source code. they can release a binary only c

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

In addition to the license a product is currently available under, you need to also consider who owns its copyright; who owns its test suite (which may not be open source at all); who employs all the people who understand the code and who owns the trademarks that identify the product. Red Hat own

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy wrote: > Any upgrades that are based on the MySQL source code will be legally required > to be released under GPL too. > > That's the beauty of GPL. Upgrades released by Oracle *do not* have be under GPL. They own all the IP, and can release future versions u

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 11/9/2010 10:27 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: This is covered by the GPL license. Once you have released code under the GPL, all derivative code - ie upgrades - have to also be released in source form, under the GPL license. Sorry but this is 100% not true. It may be true for a 3rd party (you

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Any upgrades that are based on the MySQL source code will be legally required to be released under GPL too. That's the beauty of GPL. Software under MIT or BSD license could be hijacked by private companies. Software under GPL license could not. --- On Tue, 11/9/10, Gauthier, Dave wrote: >

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On 09 Nov 2010, at 7:16 PM, Gauthier, Dave wrote: Think upgrades This is covered by the GPL license. Once you have released code under the GPL, all derivative code - ie upgrades - have to also be released in source form, under the GPL license. Regards, Graham -- -- Sent via pgsql-gener

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

kamaual...@gmail.com (Allan Kamau) writes: > I agree with Merlin, There is a surprising big number of "good" > technology companies (including Google) out there using MySQL. For > sometime I have been wondering why and have come up with a few > (possibly wrong) theories. Such as: these companies ar

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Postgres 7.2 brought non blocking vacuum.   Before that, you could > pretty much write off any 24x7 duty applications -- dealing with dead > tuples was just too much of a headache. Amen! I remember watching vacuum run alongside other queri

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Think upgrades -Original Message- From: Andy [mailto:angelf...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 12:02 PM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Gauthier, Dave Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ? --- On Tue, 11/9/10, Gauthier, Dave wrote: > A different slant on this

Re: [GENERAL] finding the other statement causing a sharelock

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo writes: > I've some strong suspect... and I'd like to exit earlier from a > function if a process is running but I'm not really sure how to add a > semaphore... Maybe pg_try_advisory_lock() would help you there? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/explicit-locking.h

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

--- On Tue, 11/9/10, Gauthier, Dave wrote: > A different slant on this has to do with licensing and $$. > Might Oracle decide some day to start charging for their new > found DB?  They are a for-profit company that's > beholding to their shareholders LONG before an open software > community.  C

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Vick Khera writes: >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe >> wrote: >>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL >>> timeline to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started >>> with 7.3 or

Re: [GENERAL] temporary table as a subset of an existing table and indexes

Basically, I take the same query as above and replace all occurences of tables logs and tags with temp_logs and temp_tags, created as follow: CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE temp_logs ON COMMIT DROP AS SELECT * FROM logs WHERE condition ORDER BY date DESC LIMIT max_size; CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE temp_tags

Re: [GENERAL] I guess I'm missing something here WRT FOUND

On 11/08/2010 09:11 PM, Ralph Smith wrote: > How is "COLLEEN" not there and there at the same time? > - > NOTICE: did not = 11K = 42 > CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "get_word" line 37 at perform > NOTIC

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

2010/11/9 Tom Lane : > Vick Khera writes: >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe >> wrote: >>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL >>> timeline to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started >>> with 7.3 or 7.4, and it has been rock so

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Hey all, IMO that they choiced MySQL because of no knowledge about PostgreSQL and about valid database designs. Just garbage of data for SELECTing with minimal efforts on data integrity and database server programming (ala typical PHP project). Sorry :-) 2010/11/9 Tom Lane > Vick Khera writes:

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

Vick Khera writes: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe > wrote: >> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline >> to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 >> or 7.4, and it has been rock solid.) > In those same times

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe wrote: > Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline > to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 or > 7.4, and it has been rock solid.) > In those same times, mysql was also, um, other

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Allan Kamau wrote: > have come up with a few > (possibly wrong) theories. They all sound reasonable. I think you missed an important one though: aggressive (and even sometimes outright false) promotion and sales by the company MySQL AB. Why I started looking at data

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Sandeep Srinivasa > wrote: >> There was an interesting post today on highscalability >> - http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/4/facebook-at-13-million-queries-per-second-recommends-minimiz.html >> The di

Re: [GENERAL] Failed archive_command copy - number of attempts configurable?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:01 AM, dan.m.harris wrote: > But then the primary retries this another 49 times! So 150 attempts in all. > > What I need to know is whether these numbers are configurable? No. > Can they be > timed? How long before the primary stops retrying altogether? Forever until th

Re: [GENERAL] Why facebook used mysql ?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Sandeep Srinivasa wrote: > There was an interesting post today on highscalability > - http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/4/facebook-at-13-million-queries-per-second-recommends-minimiz.html > The discussion/comments touched upon why mysql is a better idea for F

[GENERAL] Looking for PostgreSQL Folks in New Orleans area

Howdy folks, We're looking for some PostgreSQL users / advocates in the New Orleans area for some community outreach activities, like PGDays and User Groups. If you are in that area and interested in helping, or know who to talk to, please drop me a line, thanks! Robert Treat play: http://www.xzi

Re: [GENERAL] temporary table as a subset of an existing table and indexes

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Matthieu Huin wrote: > Hello Merlin, > > So far the improvement in responsiveness has been very noticeable, even > without indexing the temporary tables. Of course, this is just trading > accuracy for speed as I simply narrow arbitrarily the search space ... > > The

Re: [GENERAL] REINDEX requirement?

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:26 AM, AI Rumman wrote: > How do I know that index require REINDEX? Well, the REINDEX page: gives a few examples of why you might need to reindex. I think the most common reason would probably be due to i

Re: [GENERAL] temporary table as a subset of an existing table and indexes

Hello Merlin, So far the improvement in responsiveness has been very noticeable, even without indexing the temporary tables. Of course, this is just trading accuracy for speed as I simply narrow arbitrarily the search space ... The schema I am working on is close to the one I am referencing i

Re: [GENERAL] Problem with frequent crashes related to semctl

On 11/05/2010 05:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Adrian Maier writes: I am running PostgreSQL 8.3.5 on a linux machine (Ubuntu 10.04). Sometimes it happens that connecting to the database fails with error : FATAL: semctl(360458, 3, SETVAL, 0) failed: Invalid argument (PGError) If i restart

Re: [GENERAL] Run "postgresql\9.0\data" on a RAID-1 disk on my Local Area Network (LAN)

Hello, >From the logs it seems, the initdb was successful, However, the database server failed to start afterwards. Can you manually start the database service? If yes try installing PostGIS from stackbuilder after that. If no, then whats the error message you are getting? 2010/11/9 Anders Söder

[GENERAL] REINDEX requirement?

How do I know that index require REINDEX?