Hi everyone -
I have a slow query issue in an app I'm working on. I'm unfortunately
not at liberty to share the query/schema details, but I've put
together a very similar reproduction of the issue:
-
CREATE TABLE a (id integer primary key, col integer);
CREATE TABLE b (id integer primary
Hello,
I had followed this discuss
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RAXzUa=_zT_M4Z1vyDuFkpgNCZLUnRTUO5gvK2kKkNu=a...@mail.gmail.com).
I have a similar problem now:
I use one Postgres Server as Master an an other one as Standby (WAL
archives).
I do also a daily backup of the Master
Hi:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM, basti ba...@unix-solution.de wrote:
I don't know whats wrong there
hostmydns mydnslocalhost trust
works well and
#hostall all 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 md5
did not work.
I use Postgres
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:37 AM, basti ba...@unix-solution.de wrote:
#hostall all 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 md5
did not work.
If it really starts with a # like you show it above, it's just a comment
and pretty much guaranteed not to do anything.
Cheers,
Ken
--
De : pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] De la part de hubert depesz
lubaczewski
Envoyé : July-09-14 9:55 AM
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Ramesh T
rameshparnandit...@gmail.commailto:rameshparnandit...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes,not an error it is a
My table currently uses up 62 GB of storage, and it has 450 M rows. This
narrow table has a PK on (ParentID, ChildNumber), and it has between 20K and
50K of child rows per parent.
The data is inserted daily, rarely modified, never deleted. The performance
of modifications is not an issue. The
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT) AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
My table currently uses up 62 GB of storage, and it has 450 M rows. This
narrow table has a PK on (ParentID, ChildNumber), and it has between 20K and
50K of child rows per parent.
The data is inserted daily, rarely
AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
My table currently uses up 62 GB of storage, and it has 450 M
rows. This narrow table has a PK on (ParentID, ChildNumber), and
it has between 20K and 50K of child rows per parent.
The data is inserted daily, rarely modified, never deleted. The
performance of
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hanks
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:02 AM
To: PostgreSQL General
Subject: [GENERAL] Joining on a view containing a UNION ALL produces a
suboptimal plan on
I need it the way it is. It's a foreign key in the actual query.
Thanks!
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Igor Neyman iney...@perceptron.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hanks
Sent:
Bill,
Regarding SELECT performance improve nearly linerally to the number of
partitions, - can you elaborate why? If I split my table into several
partitions, even the index depth may stay the same, because the PK is
narrow, it only consists of 2 4-byte integers.
My selects are distributed more
Chris Hanks christopher.m.ha...@gmail.com writes:
CREATE VIEW tables AS
SELECT a.*, b.col AS other_col
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON a.id = b.id
UNION ALL
SELECT c.*, d.col AS other_col
FROM c
LEFT JOIN d ON c.id = d.id;
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT *
FROM tables
WHERE id = 89; --
Kevin,
For now, all the data fits in the cache: the box has 384GB of RAM. But I
want to be ready for later, when we have more data. It is easier to refactor
my table now, when it is still smallish.
Children are only added to recently added parents, and they are all
added/updated/deleted at once.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:24 AM, basti mailingl...@unix-solution.de wrote:
Hello,
I had followed this discuss
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RAXzUa=_zT_M4Z1vyDuFkpgNCZLUnRTUO5gvK2kKkNu=a...@mail.gmail.com).
I have a similar problem now:
I use one Postgres Server as Master an
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT) AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
Regarding SELECT performance improve nearly linerally to the number of
partitions, - can you elaborate why? If I split my table into several
partitions, even the index depth may stay the same, because the PK is
That did the trick! Thanks, Tom!
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Chris Hanks christopher.m.ha...@gmail.com writes:
CREATE VIEW tables AS
SELECT a.*, b.col AS other_col
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON a.id = b.id
UNION ALL
SELECT c.*, d.col AS other_col
AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
For now, all the data fits in the cache: the box has 384GB of
RAM. But I want to be ready for later, when we have more data. It
is easier to refactor my table now, when it is still smallish.
Makes sense.
Children are only added to recently added parents, and
Kevin,
What would be the advantages of partitioning on ranges of ParentID? Each
query will touch at most one partition. I might or might not get PK indexes
one level of depth less.
I understand that I will CLUSTER these smaller tables and benefit from that.
Other than clustering, what are other
Hi,
If I run checkpoint from psql, is it applied to all the databases?
What if I do it though an API? When connecting with psycopg2, I'm forced to
specify a database name, if I use dbname=postgres, and execute
checkpoint;, is it applied to all the databases?
Thanks.
--
Yves.
--
Sent via
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:36:27 -0700 (PDT) AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be the advantages of partitioning on ranges of ParentID? Each
query will touch at most one partition. I might or might not get PK indexes
one level of depth less.
You need to partition by ParentID in order for
2014-07-10 20:56 GMT+02:00 Yves Dorfsman y...@zioup.com:
Hi,
If I run checkpoint from psql, is it applied to all the databases?
What if I do it though an API? When connecting with psycopg2, I'm forced to
specify a database name, if I use dbname=postgres, and execute
checkpoint;, is it
On 2014-07-10 13:02, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
2014-07-10 20:56 GMT+02:00 Yves Dorfsman y...@zioup.com
mailto:y...@zioup.com:
Hi,
If I run checkpoint from psql, is it applied to all the databases?
What if I do it though an API? When connecting with psycopg2, I'm forced
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Bill Moran wmo...@potentialtech.com
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT) AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
My table currently uses up 62 GB of storage, and it has 450 M rows. This
narrow table has a PK on (ParentID, ChildNumber), and it has between
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, AlexK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin,
What would be the advantages of partitioning on ranges of ParentID? Each
query will touch at most one partition. I might or might not get PK indexes
one level of depth less.
I understand that I will CLUSTER these
I just tried to set up a PostgreSQL server on an existing instillation of
Ubuntu 13.10 server but I am getting an error trying to start the server and I
am not finding anything relevant to the error searching the web.
Here’s what I did to install:
$ sudo apt-get install postgresql
$ sudo
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:16:05 -0700 Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
In general, yes, given the information you provided. A parition on
ParentID % $something should improve performance.
PostgresSQL's constraint exclusion logic is not smart enough to turn a
simple equality into a
listen_addresses='*'
I'm pretty sure that listen_addresses belongs in postgresql.conf, not
pg_hba.conf.
Paul
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Aram Fingal fin...@multifactorial.com wrote:
I just tried to set up a PostgreSQL server on an existing instillation of
Ubuntu 13.10 server but I
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Aram Fingal
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 4:40 PM
To: Postgres-General General
Subject: [GENERAL] invalid connection type listen_addresses='*'
I just tried to set up a PostgreSQL server on an
listen_addresses='*' parameter doesn't belong in pg_hba.conf
This parameter should be in postgresql.conf
Thanks. That was really unclear, at least the way I followed the online
documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/auth-pg-hba-conf.html
…even after following the
Aram Fingal wrote
listen_addresses='*' parameter doesn't belong in pg_hba.conf
This parameter should be in postgresql.conf
Thanks. That was really unclear, at least the way I followed the online
documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/auth-pg-hba-conf.html
David G Johnston wrote
Aram Fingal wrote
listen_addresses='*' parameter doesn't belong in pg_hba.conf
This parameter should be in postgresql.conf
Thanks. That was really unclear, at least the way I followed the online
documentation:
It is non-specific since it is assumed at this point in the documentation
that you realize ALL configuration parameters are defined in
postgres.conf or its includes.
I think the comments in pg_hba.conf are a lot more misleading than the
online documentation, and are more likely to be read.
Hello,
I had followed this discuss
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RAXzUa=_zT_M4Z1vyDuFkpgNCZLUnRTUO5gvK2kKkNu=a...@mail.gmail.com).
I have a similar problem now:
I use one Postgres Server as Master an an other one as Standby (WAL
archives).
I do also a daily backup of the Master
Hello
We are writing a small application and we are trying to determine if
PostgreSQL is the right database for us.
The application at this stage is only for a single user and commonly for
persons with little computer expertise.
When the database is installed a postgreSQL user account is
I'm getting a handful of 'can not index words longer than 2047 characters' on
my `gin` indexes.
1. does this 2047 character count correspond to tokens / indexed words?
2. if so, is there a way to lower this number ?
3. is there a way to profile the index for the frequency of tokens ?
(
On Jul 10, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Don Brown dbr...@msd.net.au wrote:
Hello
We are writing a small application and we are trying to determine if
PostgreSQL is the right database for us.
The application at this stage is only for a single user and commonly for
persons with little computer
On 7/10/2014 5:01 PM, Don Brown wrote:
When the database is installed a postgreSQL user account is created
which in most cases will be the second user account on the PC. The
result of this is the user now has to select the user account when
ever the computer is restarted.
I thought I saw
Hi,
We have the requirement of using the data type tsvector [], however, I didn't
find out how to:
* Use array operator together with tsquery operator
o I have to unnest the array and then do query like ts@@ to_tsquery('ipod')
* Create GIN index on tsvector[]
o ERROR:
Don Brown wrote
Thank you and appreciate any comments/suggestions
Host the database in a shared-tenent arrangement and have your application
remotely connect to it or to an intermediary application that will then
perform the work and simply deal with input/output with the client.
Dave
--
Huang, Suya wrote
Hi,
We have the requirement of using the data type tsvector [], however, I
didn't find out how to:
* Use array operator together with tsquery operator
o I have to unnest the array and then do query like ts@@
to_tsquery('ipod')
You will have to create some
40 matches
Mail list logo
