Myron,
First, this sounds really good!
On 4/8/06 9:54 PM, "Myron Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I added a little hack to the buffer
> code to force
> pages read into the buffer to stay at the back of the free buffer list
> until the master
> thread has had a chance to use it.
This is the
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
We should consider true parallel execution and overlapping execution
with I/O as distinct cases.
For example, one case made in this thread involved bursty performance
with seqscans presumably because the I/O was stalling while processing
was being performed. In general th
I need a rownum column, like Oracle. I have searched the mailing lists
and I don't see a satisfactory solution, so I was wondering write a UDF
to implement it, the requirements are:
+1
I would _love_ to see rownums in PostgreSQL :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)-
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:54:09AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
> > > machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
> > > and provide some other m
Philipp Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently 8.1.3 compiles and runs just fine on OSX 10.4.6 + XCode
> 2.2.1, but generates binaries just for the current host architecture.
> Now when I add -arch i386 -arch ppc to CFLAGS and LDFLAGS for
> configure, then it compiles everything just fin
Greg,
On 4/8/06 5:43 PM, "Gregory Maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, one case made in this thread involved bursty performance
> with seqscans presumably because the I/O was stalling while processing
> was being performed. In general this can be avoided without parallel
> executio
On Apr 8, 2006, at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote:
It *is* documented: the manual lists the statements that affect FOUND,
and EXECUTE is not among them.
Whether it should be is another question, but that's a definition
disagreement (a/k/a enhancement proposal) not a bug.
I think that:
a. It should be
On 4/8/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is exactly the bit of optimism I was questioning. We've already
> been sweating blood trying to reduce multiprocessor contention on data
> structures in which collisions ought to be avoidable (ie, buffer arrays
> where you hope not everyone is
On 4/8/06, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sadly, ANSI did just that.
Thanks for pointing that out... I'd been using LIMIT/OFFSET for so
long, I totally forgot about the standard :(
--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324
On 4/8/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> passing large volumes of data between different processes is going
> to incur quite a lot of locking overhead, pipeline stalls for cache line
> transfers, etc, etc, because heavy contention for the transfer buffer is
> simply not going to be avoidabl
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 02:02:53PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was allways under the impression
> that Oracle's ROWNUM is a thing attached to a row in the final result
> set, whatever (possibly random) order that happens to have. Now a) this
> is something th
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/8/06, Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ehm.. which additional I/O cost? Or do you count inter-process
>> communication to I/O?
> Inter-process will add a minimal amount, but if it's done correctly,
> you'll still end up ahead.
David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that FOUND is false, but the ROW_COUNT fetched by GET
> DIAGNOSTICS is set to 1. So shouldn't FOUND be true? Or does it just
> not work with EXECUTE and need to be documented as such? Or am I just
> missing something obvious?
It *is* documente
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 12:54 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> As well as projects and students, we also will need mentors for Summer of
> Code
> projects. I'm not sure exactly what time commitment being a mentor involves,
> but I imagine that it's at least a couple dozen hours over the summer.
> V
I had expected the FOUND PL/pgSQL variable to be set by an UPDATE
statement executed by an EXECUTE statement, but it doesn't appear to
work:
try=# drop table try;
DROP TABLE
try=# CREATE TABLE try (
try(# id integer
try(# );
CREATE TABLE
try=# INSERT INTO try VALUES (1);
INSERT 0 1
try=# CR
Folks,
As well as projects and students, we also will need mentors for Summer of Code
projects. I'm not sure exactly what time commitment being a mentor involves,
but I imagine that it's at least a couple dozen hours over the summer.
Volunteers, please contact me. Note that we can have corpo
On 4/8/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A function implemented as per Michael's example would not give the
> results that I think people would expect for
>
> SELECT rownum(), * FROM foo ORDER BY whatever;
>
Yep, the query would have to be rewritten similar to Oracle's:
SELECT row
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My humble guess is that c) is also the reason why the ANSI didn't find a
> ROWNUM desirable.
I've never understood what the conceptual model is for Oracle's rownum.
Where along the SQL operational pipeline (FROM / WHERE / GROUP BY /
aggregate / compute outp
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While trying to help somebody on IRC with slow queries against
> information_schema i stumbled across the following EXPLAIN buglet (much
> reduced from the original one and does not make a lot of sense therefore):
> foo=# explain SELECT * FROM inf
On 4/8/06, Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was allways under the impression
> that Oracle's ROWNUM is a thing attached to a row in the final result
> set, whatever (possibly random) order that happens to have. Now a) this
> is something that IMHO belong
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was allways under the impression
that Oracle's ROWNUM is a thing attached to a row in the final result
set, whatever (possibly random) order that happens to have. Now a) this
is something that IMHO belongs into the client or stored procedure code,
b) if I
On 4/8/06, Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ACK. As long as processes, signals and shared memory are used this could
> be as portable as PostgreSQL is now.
This is certainly the case.
> Ehm.. which additional I/O cost? Or do you count inter-process
> communication to I/O?
Inter-p
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 13:16 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 4/8/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... but I'm failing to follow where it says that parallel processing
> > will fix that. All I can foresee in that direction is extra data
> > transfer costs, bought at the price of p
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:46:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Juan Manuel Diaz Lara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I need a rownum column, like Oracle. I have searched the mailing lists
> > and I don't see a satisfactory solution, so I was wondering write a
> > UDF to implement it, the requirements
On 4/8/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... but I'm failing to follow where it says that parallel processing
> will fix that. All I can foresee in that direction is extra data
> transfer costs, bought at the price of portability and locking headaches.
I don't think it's any less portable
Juan Manuel Diaz Lara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need a rownum column, like Oracle. I have searched the mailing lists and I
> don't see a satisfactory solution, so I was wondering write a UDF to
> implement it, the requirements are:
Try keeping a counter in fcinfo->flinfo->fn_extra.
> 3.
I need a rownum column, like Oracle. I have searched the mailing lists and I don't see a satisfactory solution, so I was wondering write a UDF to implement it, the requirements are: 1. Need to preserve state between calls to the function (the rowcount). Maybe using a MemoryContext with a lifesp
27 matches
Mail list logo
