"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think ... an in-list is going to do better than a list of constants
> separated by OR.
Right at the moment, there is no performance difference between
WHERE foo IN (const1, const2, const3)
and
WHERE foo = const1 OR foo = const2 OR foo =
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 22:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> >Well, it should not have surprised anyone. We have targeted June 1 as a
> > beta freeze date for several versions, not just 7.5. In fact, looking
> > back through last year's pre-7.4 discussion, it's deja vu all over
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Hegedus, Tamas . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [HACKERS] TimeOf(Subselects|Joins)FromLargeTables?
>
>
> Dear All,
>
[snip]
> -
> What should I
Dear All,
(I asked the general-list, I had some advice, but the final conclusion was to ask the
developers and tell them a possible mistake of the query planner, too.)
I am a biologist and I do not know what to expect from an RDB (PgSQL).
I have large tables: 1215607 rows in prots, 2184596 rows
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
We could fix this by changing the declarations of the "maxoff" variables
to int, but I think it's probably cleaner to recode
PageGetMaxOffsetNumber like so:
#define PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page) \
(((PageHeader) (page))->pd_lower <= SizeOfPageHeaderData ? 0
Tom Lane wrote:
I was just looking at this macro:
/*
* PageGetMaxOffsetNumber
*Returns the maximum offset number used by the given page.
*Since offset numbers are 1-based, this is also the number
*of items on the page.
*
*NOTE: to ensure sane behavior if the pa
On 6/4/2004 3:28 PM, Rick Gigger wrote:
The link you have down there is not the one on the site. All of the
links to that file work just fine for me on the live site.
After Dave told me how to, I fixed the page.
Jan
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 6/4/2004 4:47 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01
Hello ,
Can some one educate me about how to understand the timings produced by
'postgres -te' option
eventhough some of the timings i could understand, I would like to know how
the different stats provided there are affecting the total execution
ultimately !!!
Thanks in adv
-Ramu
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
Jan,
Great ... and there is no way to modify anything on gborg ... this is
the first and last project I manage on any site where I don't have shell
access to the content.
Sorry -- we'd like to migrate you (and lots of other projects) but,
a) I'm still sick, an
I was thinking a bit more about Alvaro's suggestion of the other day
that repalloc(NULL, size) should be allowed. I'm still convinced that
that's a bad idea, but it occurs to me that there is another corner
case in the palloc stuff that there's a better case for changing.
Specifically, I think we
Jan,
> Great ... and there is no way to modify anything on gborg ... this is
> the first and last project I manage on any site where I don't have shell
> access to the content.
Sorry -- we'd like to migrate you (and lots of other projects) but,
a) I'm still sick, and
b) we're still having perform
Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> > shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
> > shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
>
> I don't know if this is pedantic or just ob
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:10:02 +0300
Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> > shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
> > shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
>
> I don't kno
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Wieck
> Sent: 04 June 2004 12:50
> To: Karel Zak
> Cc: Slony-I Mailing List; PostgreSQL-development; PostgreSQL
> advocacy; PostgreSQL General
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slony-I goes BETA
>
> Gre
On 6/4/2004 4:47 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:01:19AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
Yes, Slonik's,
it't true. After nearly a year the Slony-I project is entering the BETA
phase for the 1.0 release. Please visit
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1/news/newsfull.php?news_id=174
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
Seeing how PITR, nested transactions, and other exciting developments
related to transactions are being developed, I am getting curious about how
PostgreSQL actually implements transactions. Investigating Materialized
Views has led me to look closely at how transactions w
Frank Wiles wrote:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
I don't know if this is pedantic or just obsessive-compulsive,
but I think it should be MB and KB (or more p
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:01:19AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Yes, Slonik's,
>
> it't true. After nearly a year the Slony-I project is entering the BETA
> phase for the 1.0 release. Please visit
>
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1/news/newsfull.php?news_id=174
Jan, the link
http
18 matches
Mail list logo
