Hello
please, can you refresh patch, please?
[pa...@nemesis pgsql]$ patch -p1 backend.patch
patching file src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c
patching file src/backend/catalog/Makefile
patching file src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
patching file src/backend/catalog/dependency.c
patching file
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I mulled over which of those names was better; updated version,
reflecting your proposed naming, attached.
I read the patch and found some small typos.
+If true, any error will terminate the current session.
Hi,
On 07/13/2010 08:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
You could submit them as Work In Progress patches
Okay, I added them. I guess they get more attention that way.
Regards
Markus
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
hello everybody,
we are currently facing some serious issues with cross correlation issue.
consider: 10% of all people have breast cancer. we have 2 genders (50:50).
if i select all the men with breast cancer, i will get basically nobody - the
planner will overestimate the output.
this is the
On 14/07/10 13:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
hello everybody,
we are currently facing some serious issues with cross correlation issue.
consider: 10% of all people have breast cancer. we have 2 genders (50:50).
if i select all the men with breast cancer, i will get basically
On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14/07/10 13:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
hello everybody,
we are currently facing some serious issues with cross correlation issue.
consider: 10% of all people have breast cancer. we have 2 genders (50:50).
if i
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
However, the problem is how to represent and store the
cross-correlation. For fields with low cardinality, like gender and
boolean breast-cancer-or-not you can count the prevalence of all the
different combinations, but that doesn't scale. Another often cited
example
Hello Robert,
As part of the current reviewfest, I reviewed your patch, and made some
changes on the way.
This was all ok:
*) while proofreading I did not find typos other than the one that
Joachim had already pointed out.
*) the addition of 5-key lookups to the existing ones seems a
Hello
this patch is significantly reduced original patch. It doesn't propose
a simple allocator - just eliminate a high memory usage for ispell
dictionary.
without this patch the ispell dictionary takes 55MB for tsearch2
context and 27MB in temp context. With this patch it takes only 25MB
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 14/07/10 13:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
maybe somehow like this ...
ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS FOR (id = id2 AND id3=id4)
+1 is my general feeling, it's good if you can tell the system to
collect
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:21:19PM +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
However, the problem is how to represent and store the
cross-correlation. For fields with low cardinality, like gender and
boolean breast-cancer-or-not you can count the prevalence of all the
hello tom,
i think that having stats on an index is a problem by itself for 2 reasons -
for cross column correlation at least:
a.) joins cannot be covered by an index on two tables - we would fix
inside a table correlation problems but not joins.
b.) who says that there is
=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= postg...@cybertec.at
writes:
i think that having stats on an index is a problem by itself for 2 reasons -
for cross column correlation at least:
a.) joins cannot be covered by an index on two tables - we would fix
inside a table
Tom Lane wrote:
If the combination of columns is actually interesting, there might well
be an index in place, or the DBA might be willing to create it.
I'm having a hard time imagining an interesting case where that wouldn't
be so.
For
that matter, have you considered the idea of
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Attach is a new patch with all things described above addressed.
Thanks!
I think we should probably hold off applying this until some of the
other KNNGIST work is ready, or we have some other concrete need for
5-key
hello ...
look at the syntax i posted in more detail:
ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS FOR (x.id = y.id AND x.id2 =
y.id2)
it says X and Y ...
the selectivity of joins are what i am most interested in. cross correlation of
columns within the same table are just a byproduct.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
An actual plan here might look like let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it ...
Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing
cycles on it.
Should we do this?
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Attach is a new patch with all things described above addressed.
Thanks!
I think we should probably hold off applying this until some of the
other KNNGIST work is ready, or we have some other
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I read the patch and found some small typos.
Thanks. Corrected version attached.
We should add something like?:
-
Even if this value is set to true, a backend crash during hot standby doesn't
reinitialize
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
An actual plan here might look like let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it ...
Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing
cycles on
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Attach is a new patch with all things described above addressed.
Thanks!
I think we should probably hold off applying this
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:41:01PM +0200, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
wrote:
hello ...
look at the syntax i posted in more detail:
ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS FOR (x.id = y.id AND x.id2 =
y.id2)
it says X and Y ...
the selectivity of joins are what i am most
2010/7/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If the combination of columns is actually interesting, there might well
be an index in place, or the DBA might be willing to create it.
Indexes aren't free, though, nor even close to it.
Still, I think we should figure out the underlying mechanism first
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
The patch have no features for performance improvement of synchronous
replication. I admit that currently the performance overhead in the
master is terrible. We need to address the following TODO items in the
subsequent
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
An actual plan here might look like let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it ...
Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Here is a proof of concept for per-column collation support.
Did you want a WIP review of that patch? (CF closing to new
submissions soon)
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:58 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As decided at this years hackers conference, we are branching
REL9_0_STABLE *before* the release, instead of after.
The hope is that we won't be taking away resources from finishing the
release, but still allow ppl to continue to
Hello
I have only one question - If I understand well you can use collate
just for sort. What is your plan for range search operation? Sort is
interesting and I am sure important for multilangual applications, for
me - more important is case sensitive, case insensitive, accent
sensitive,
On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:58 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As decided at this years hackers conference, we are branching
REL9_0_STABLE *before* the release, instead of after.
The hope is that we won't be taking away
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
The branch is now created.
Is Git now the authoritative source?
No. Marc created the branch in CVS.
Right, the decision at the dev meeting (which could be OBE,
Following on the smashing success of PostgreSQL Conference East,
PostgreSQL Conference West, The PostgreSQL Conference for Decision
Makers, End Users and Developers, is being held at the St. Francis,
Westin Hotel in San Francisco from November 2nd through 4th 2010. Please
join us in making this
On ons, 2010-07-14 at 19:35 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I have only one question - If I understand well you can use collate
just for sort. What is your plan for range search operation?
My patch does range searches. Sorting uses the same operators, so both
will be supported. (Sorting is not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If the combination of columns is actually interesting, there might well
be an index in place, or the DBA might be willing to create it.
Indexes aren't free, though, nor even close
Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com writes:
ALTER TABLE x SET CORRELATION STATISTICS FOR (x.id =3D y.id AND x.id=
2 =3D y.id2)
=20
it says X and Y ... the selectivity of joins are what i am most
interested in. cross correlation of columns within the same table are
just a byproduct. the core
David,
I'd like to volunteer reviewing your patch at first in this commit fest.
We already had a few comments on the list before. I want to see your
opinion for the suggestions prior to code reviews.
Itagaki-san suggested:
| Enclosed is a patch to add a -C option to initdb to allow you to
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The code is only trying to substitute for something you can't have
in parallel restore, ie --single-transaction.
Exactly. IIRC that's why --single-transaction was
2010/7/14 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On ons, 2010-07-14 at 19:35 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I have only one question - If I understand well you can use collate
just for sort. What is your plan for range search operation?
My patch does range searches. Sorting uses the same operators,
On 14/07/10 15:48, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com wrote:
An actual plan here might look like let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it ...
Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha
38 matches
Mail list logo
