On Oct 16, 2006, at 16:17 , Madison Kelly wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and
perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple
hint system
pop up now and again, I keep
AgentM wrote:
Alvaro's advice is sound. If the patent holder can prove that a
developer looked at a patent (for example, from an email in a mailing
list archive) and the project proceeded with the implementation
regardless, malice can been shown and damages can be substantially
higher. You're
On 10/17/06, Madison Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AgentM wrote: Alvaro's advice is sound. If the patent holder can prove that a developer looked at a patent (for example, from an email in a mailing list archive) and the project proceeded with the implementation
regardless, malice can been shown
Brian Mathis wrote:
I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to
know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent,
you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did
it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance
On 10/17/06, Madison Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote: I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to know that ignorance *IS* a defense.If you are ignorant of the patent, you only have to pay the damages.If you knew about the patent and did
it anyway,
Colour me funny, but wouldn't staying out of the courts in the first
place not be the best option?
Yes, however some people feel that given the way the patent office is
spewing huge quantities of patents, many on old well-known techniques, and
the the absurd difficulty of reading patent claims,
Madison Kelly wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote:
I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to
know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent,
you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did
it anyway, you have to pay
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah. I invite you to do all the extra (useless) development work
required. But please do not charge other people with it. Whoever
investigates patents and lets pgsql-hackers know about them, is charging
the Postgres community with that work. We sure don't need it.
As
On Oct 17, 2006, at 10:46 , Madison Kelly wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote:
I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the
US) to know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of
the patent, you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about
the patent and did it
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 10:24 -0400, Madison Kelly wrote:
Nor am I a lawyer, but I still hold that hoping ignorance will be a
decent defense is very, very risky. In the end I am not a pgSQL
developer so it isn't in my hands either way.
If I may.
The hoping, ignorance will save you line of
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:39:20PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It may well be that by first looking at the data collected from problems
queries, the solution for how to adjust the planner becomes more
obvious.
Yeah, that would be useful to have. The problem I see is
Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its mistakes over time is far more desirable.
Is it
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its mistakes over time is
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
I think you might want to check US Patent 6,763,359 before you
start writing any code.
http://tinyurl.com/yzjdve
- John D. Burger
MITRE
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its
Madison Kelly wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hasn't IBM release a pile of it's patents for use (or at least stated
they won't sue) to OSS projects? If so, is this patent covered by that
amnesty?
This is useless as a policy, because we have plenty of companies basing
their proprietary code on PostgreSQL, which
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Just recording the query plan and actual vs estimated rowcounts would
be a good start, though. And useful to DBA's, provided you had some
means to query against it.
If the DBMS stores the incoming query (or some parsed version of it) and
identifies frequency of usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/13/06 10:47, John D. Burger wrote:
Erik Jones wrote:
[snip]
But with both approaches, the planner is just using the static
statistics gathered by ANALYZE to estimate the cost of each candidate
plan, and these statistics are based on
Forgive me if I'm way off here as I'm not all that familiar with the
internals of postgres, but isn't this what the genetic query optimizer
discussed the one of the manual's appendixes is supposed to do. Or, is
that more about using the the known costs of atomic operations that make
up a
Erik Jones wrote:
Forgive me if I'm way off here as I'm not all that familiar with
the internals of postgres, but isn't this what the genetic query
optimizer discussed the one of the manual's appendixes is supposed
to do.
No - it's not an optimizer in that sense. When there are a small
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:47 , John D. Burger wrote:
Erik Jones wrote:
Forgive me if I'm way off here as I'm not all that familiar with
the internals of postgres, but isn't this what the genetic query
optimizer discussed the one of the manual's appendixes is supposed
to do.
No - it's not
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:39:20PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It seems to me the first logical step would be having the ability to
flip a switch and when the postmaster hits a slow query, it saves both
the query that ran long, as well as the output of explain or explain
analyze or
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:53:15AM -0400, AgentM wrote:
One simple first step would be to run an ANALYZE whenever a
sequential scan is executed. Is there a reason not to do this? It
Yes. You want a seqscan on a small (couple pages) table, and ANALYZE has
a very high overhead on some
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 12:48, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:39:20PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It seems to me the first logical step would be having the ability to
flip a switch and when the postmaster hits a slow query, it saves both
the query that ran long, as well
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its mistakes over time is far more desirable.
Is it reasonable or possible for
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:31:50PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its mistakes
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 17:14, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:31:50PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep
28 matches
Mail list logo
