Gavin Sherry wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Machine:
256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.
What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there
would be no neg
Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume $PGDATA was around long before GUC?
Yes, it was. But I have not yet seen an argument here that justifies
why $SOMECONFIGDIRECTORY/postgresql.conf is better than
$PGDATA/postgresql.conf. The latter keeps all the related files
together. The forme
The benchmark handbook:
http://www.benchmarkresources.com/handbook/contents.asp
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is how to get the FIPS benchmark. It measures CONFORMANCE rather
than performance:
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/sql_form.htm
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
A financial database benchmark:
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/shasha/fintime.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:32 PM
> To: Shridhar
> Daithankar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
>
>
> There's "The Open Sou
mlw wrote:
> AFAIK it wasn't actually done. It was more of a, "we should do something
> different" argument. At one point it was talked about rewriting the
> configuration system to allow "include" and other things.
That seems like extreme overkill. The PostgreSQL configuration
mechanism doesn'
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Another way of looking at it is memory mapped files. This probably most
> closely resembles unix shared memory and is the de facto standard way
> for interprocess memory block sharing. Sadly, performance will suffer
> because you have to rely on the v
There's "The Open Source Database Benchmark",
http://osdb.sourceforge.net/.
Anyone tried to use it?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
---(end of broadcast)
Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL?
> What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL?
TOASTed fields max out at 1Gb. Large objects max out at either 2 or 4 Gb
... I'm not sure whether we consistently use signed or
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 10:56 pm, you wrote:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose
> > which to copy into the database directory? We could have a "high read
> > performance" profile, and a "transaction database" profil
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> >Win32 isn't really fair:
> >
> >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> And wh
Anagh Lal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I am still confused by the following:
> In /backend/executor/nodeMergeJoin.c
> in ExecMergeJoin()
> In the state (the switch case) EXEC_MJ_JOINTUPLES
> we still do ExecProject(), what does this do?
Well, sure. A join node *must* do a projection, no? I
> > Machine:
> > 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
>
> Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.
Perhaps, but I'm benchmarking for that machine, not for any other. The
results have to include the 256MB spec.
Also, the peak was 25MB of SHM, which still leave 231MB
> A separate line of investigation is "what is the lowest common
> denominator nowadays?" I think we've established that SHMMAX=1M
> is obsolete, but what replaces it as the next LCD? 4M seems to be
> correct for some BSD flavors, and I can confirm that that's the
> current default for Mac OS X -
> >> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> >> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> >> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us
> >> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a
> >> se
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
>> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
>> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us
>> 350 or so shared_
Hi Chris,
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Machine:
> 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.
What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there
would be no negative to having infinite s
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Relying on hash aggregation will become essential if we are ever going
> to implement the "other" groupings (CUBE, ROLLUP, (), ...), so it would
> be nice if hash aggregation could also overflow to disk
I did not make this happen, but it sounds like Joe
> > I am now going to leave it on 5000 and play with wal_buffers.
> > Is there anything else people are interested in me trying?
>
> Keenly interested. Who wouldn't want to know how to optimize it?
> That's the hardest guideline to find.
Oops - what that sentence was supposed to say is "Is there
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:54 PM
> To: Hackers; Advocacy
> Subject: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have just completed a basic set of benchmarking on our new
> databa
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I hate to poo-poo this, but this "web of trust" sounds more like a "web
> of confusion". I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
> announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
> 'web of %$*&" to be set up to che
Hi Everyone,
I have just completed a basic set of benchmarking on our new database
server. I wanted to figure out a good value for shared_buffers before we go
live.
We are a busy ecommerce-style website and so we probably get 10 or 20 to 1
read transactions vs. write transactions. We also don't
I, personally, also think it makes more sense to pass to the postmaster
a configuration file that contains all the rest of the information about
the database system, including the disk locations of the various data
directories and whatnot.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... The original choice of 32 was set because the original
> choice of 64 shared memory blocks as the most we could hope for on common
> OS installs. Now that we're looking at cranking that up to 1000,
> shouldn't max connections get a look too?
Ac
"Joe Hellerstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am teaching the undergrad DB course at UC Berkeley, something I do
> with some frequency. We have the usual 180 students we get every
> semester (yep: 180!), but this year we've instituted 2 changes:
> 1) We changed the course projects to make t
Hi all:
I wanted to give the PostgreSQL community a heads up on ongoing
database research here at UC Berkeley, which may be of interest since
it uses PGSQL.
The last few years we've been building a system called Telegraph, which
has a number of research thrusts:
a) aggressively adaptive query
In Canada we have small claims court. up to 10,1000$ and it only costs
you 50$ to file a claim. They have to file a defense or settle within 30
days. Usally if they owe you the money it forces them to do something,
either settle or *really* drag it out, but it gets the process moving.
Jeroen
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:56:56PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> This company doesn't dispute any of my invoices and says they are going to pay
> me. But they have not yet done so. This company is still in business, and
I wouldn't know about your country, whichever that may be, but in the
Neth
> >After it's all said and done, I would rather someone simply say, "it's
> >beyond my skill set", and attempt to get help or walk away. That seems
> >better than them being able to run it and say, "it's a dog", spreading
> >word-of-mouth as such after they left PostgreSQL behind. Worse yet,
> >t
Why don't we include a postgresql.conf.recommended along with our
postgresql.conf.sample. That shouldn't be too hard. We can just jack up
the shared buffers and wal buffers and everything - it doesn't matter if
it's not perfect, but it will at least give people an idea of what needs to
be increas
I hate to poo-poo this, but this "web of trust" sounds more like a "web
of confusion". I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$*&" to be set up to check things. Yea, it isn't as secure as
going through
> > It likely. First you will ran out kernel file descriptors. This could
> > be solved by increasing the kernel table or lowering
> > max_files_per_process, though. Second the total throughput will
> > rapidly descrease if you don't have enough RAM and many
> > CPUs. PostgreSQL can not handle many
Being that this group of hackers is one I trust, and that this is a pretty
common scenario for contract programming, I thought I'd ask this group a
question. I hope you don't mind.
I did some contract programming work for a to-be-nameless company a while
back, and I'm having difficulty collect
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be
> > higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of
> > running out of file descriptors.
> >
> > Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PH
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 17:42:06 -0700,
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The poor performance of Postgresql in it's current default configuration
> HAS cost us users, trust me, I know a few we've almost lost where I work
> that I converted after some quick tweaking of their datab
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we
> > should adjust the defaults.
>
> Some of these issues could be made to Just Go Away with some code
> changes. For example, using mmap rathe
It's interesting that people focus on shared_buffers. From my
experience the most dominating parameter for performance is
wal_sync_method. It sometimes makes ~20% performance difference. On
the otherhand, shared_buffers does very little for
performance. Moreover too many shared_buffers cause perfor
> If I thought that pgbench was representative of anything, or even
> capable of reliably producing repeatable numbers, then I might subscribe
> to results derived this way. But I have little or no confidence in
> pgbench. Certainly I don't see how you'd use it to produce
> recommendations for a
> My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be
> higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of
> running out of file descriptors.
>
> Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PHP or another
> language that runs as an apache modu
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Rick Gigger wrote:
> The type of person who can't configure it or doesnt' think to try is
> probably not doing a project that requires any serious performance. As long
> as you are running it on decent hardware postgres will run fantastic for
> anything but a very heavy load.
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:27, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> > [Re: everybody sharing a single key]
> >
> > This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
> > that is signing a key
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we
> should adjust the defaults.
Some of these issues could be made to Just Go Away with some code
changes. For example, using mmap rather than SysV shared memory
would automatically optimize y
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Here's the comment I was referring to:
>
> /*
> * InitProcGlobal -
> * initializes the global process table. We put it here so that
> * the postmaster can do this initialization.
> *
> * We also create all the per-process semaphores
On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> [Re: everybody sharing a single key]
>
> This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
> that is signing a key must take reasonable measures to ensure the
> protection of thei
> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about
> > > tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too
> > > conservative,
> >
> > It's a lot too conservative.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL?
> What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL?
>
> The "PostgreSQL Limitations" page says the maximum size of a "field" is
> 1 Gb, but does a large object const
Hi All,
What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL?
What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL?
The "PostgreSQL Limitations" page says the maximum size of a "field" is
1 Gb, but does a large object constitute a field? :)
Thanks,
Paul
--
__
/
On Tuesday 11 February 2003 13:03, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:08, Justin Clift wrote:
> > b) Said benchmarking person knows very little about PostgreSQL, so they
> > install the RPM's, packages, or whatever, and "it works". Then they run
> > whatever benchmark they've downloade
Has a final decision been made if the win32 port is going to
be threaded or not?
Merlin
Hi,
Two parts to the mail
1)
> We already do --- the scan nodes project out only
> the needed columns.
ok..thats great.
I tried looking for what you are saying in the source
code... [before and after doing a cvs update].. but I
am still confused by the following:
In /backend/executor/nodeMergeJoin.
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
2) Knowing the trend to move stuff *out* of the PostgreSQL source tarball, and
assuming plr is released under GPL, is there any chance that it would be
accepted into src/pl or contrib, or should I start a gborg project (I'd prefer
if it co
I have just returned from a two-week speaking trip to Japan and Belgium.
I spoke at three locations in Tokyo, and at FOSDEM in Brussels. I have
updated my home page to list all the speeches, including one on
replication and a new marketing one:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/comput
Tom Lane writes:
> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us
> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a
>
True, but even so, 32 max connections is a bit light. I have more
pgsql databases than that on my box now. My point in my previous answer
to Tom was that you HAVE to shut down postgresql to change this. It
doesn't allocate tons of semaphores on startup,
[snip]
is this correct? I recall loo
Tom Lane kirjutas T, 11.02.2003 kell 18:39:
> Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that
> >>> have = operators but no useful <
On 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely
> > > to cause too many problems?
> >
> > That would likely run into number-of-sema
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely
> > to cause too many problems?
>
> That would likely run into number-of-semaphores limitations (SEMMNI,
> SEMMNS). We do not seem to
Tom Lane wrote:
I think that what this discussion is really leading up to is that we
are going to decide to apply the same principle to performance. The
out-of-the-box settings ought to give reasonable performance, and if
your system can't handle it, you should have to take explicit action
to ac
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX,
> and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native
> Windows port --- any issues there?
>
> >From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely
> > to cause too many problems?
>
> That would likely run into number-of-semaphores limitations (SEMMNI,
> SEMMNS). We do not
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... So we ship postgresql.conf with 32M of
> shared memory and auto_shared_mem_reduction = true. With a comment that
> the administrator might want to turn this off for production.
This really doesn't address Justin's point about clueless benchm
Robert Treat wrote:
I'm going to be lazy and ask if you can post what the better solution
that was coming was (or a link to the thread). While I'll grant you that
the "it's coming" argument is pretty weak after two releases, that fact
that it may have been a better solution could still hold up.
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely
> to cause too many problems?
That would likely run into number-of-semaphores limitations (SEMMNI,
SEMMNS). We do not seem to have as good documentation about changing
that as
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:44, mlw wrote:
> The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I
> submitted in 7.1 days.
>
> One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a
> backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory,
> the administr
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I
> > am missing something.
>
> Yeah, AFAIK all recent Linuxen are well above the range of parameters
> that I was suggesting (and ev
Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX,
and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native
Windows port --- any issues there?
From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use the
VirtualAlloc() memory allocation functions and set up a pa
My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be
higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of
running out of file descriptors.
Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PHP or another
language that runs as an apache module, it is qu
The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I
submitted in 7.1 days.
One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a
backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory,
the administrator should specify a database configuration file. W
Apology
After Mark calms down and, in fact, sees that Greg was saying the right thing
after all, chagrin is the only word.
I'm sorry.
Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:23, mlw wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:
I'd personally rather have people stumble
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:08, Justin Clift wrote:
> b) Said benchmarking person knows very little about PostgreSQL, so they
> install the RPM's, packages, or whatever, and "it works". Then they run
> whatever benchmark they've downloaded, or designed, or whatever
>
Out of curiosity, how feasibl
"Jon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I
> am missing something.
Yeah, AFAIK all recent Linuxen are well above the range of parameters
that I was suggesting (and even if they weren't, Linux is particularly
easy to change
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This attitude sucks. If you want a product to be used, you must put the
> effort into making it usable.
> [snip]
AFAICT, you are flaming Greg for recommending the exact same thing you
are recommending. Please calm down and read again.
re
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of
>> parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea
>> in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details.
> Without too much hack
Tom, Justin,
> > Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of
> > parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea
> > in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details.
Sure.
Mostly-Read database, few users, good hardware, complex q
Tom Lane wrote:
Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of
parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea
in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details.
A lower-tech way to accomplish the same result is to document these
alter
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> > UTF-8 seems to be the most popular, but even XML standard requires all
> > compliant implementations to deal with at least both UTF-8 and UTF-16.
>
> I don't think PostgreSQL is going to natively support UTF-16.
At FOSDEM it was claimed that Windows natively uses UCS-2, a
FYI, my stock linux 2.4.19 gentoo kernel has:
kernel.shmall = 2097152
kernel.shmmax = 33554432
sysctl -a
So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I
am missing something.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you chec
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:23, mlw wrote:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I'd personally rather have people stumble trying to get PostgreSQL
> >running, up front, rather than allowing the lowest common denominator
> >more easily run PostgreSQL only to be disappointed with it and move on.
> >
>
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom, Justin,
What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which
to copy into the database directory? We could have a "high read
performance" profile, and a "transaction database" profile, and a
"workstation" profile, and a "low impact" profile
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which
> to copy into the database directory? We could have a "high read
> performance" profile, and a "transaction database" profile, and a
> "workstation" profile, and a "low impac
> What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose
> which to copy into the database directory? We could have a "high read
Exactly my first thought when reading the proposal for a setting suited for
performance tests.
> performance" profile, and a "transaction database"
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:10, Steve Crawford wrote:
> A quick-'n'-dirty first step would be more comments in postgresql.conf. Most
This will not solve the issue with the large number of users who have no
interest in looking at the config file -- but are interested in
publishing their results.
--
Tom, Justin,
> > What I would really like to do is set the default shared_buffers to
> > 1000. That would be 8 meg worth of shared buffer space. Coupled with
> > more-realistic settings for FSM size, we'd probably be talking a shared
> > memory request approaching 16 meg. This is not enough RAM
Greg Copeland wrote:
I'd personally rather have people stumble trying to get PostgreSQL
running, up front, rather than allowing the lowest common denominator
more easily run PostgreSQL only to be disappointed with it and move on.
After it's all said and done, I would rather someone simply s
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I'd be a bunch happier if we set the buffers so high that we
> definitely have decent performance, and the people that want to run
> PostgreSQL are forced to make the choice of either:
> 1) Adjust their system settings to allow PostgreSQL to
A quick-'n'-dirty first step would be more comments in postgresql.conf. Most
of the lines are commented out which would imply "use the default" but the
default is not shown. (I realize this has the difficulty of defaults that
change depending upon how PostgreSQL was configured/compiled but perha
Tom Lane wrote:
What I would really like to do is set the default shared_buffers to
1000. That would be 8 meg worth of shared buffer space. Coupled with
more-realistic settings for FSM size, we'd probably be talking a shared
memory request approaching 16 meg. This is not enough RAM to bother
a
Tom Lane wrote:
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about
tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too
conservative,
It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile t
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about
> > tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too
> > conservative,
>
> It's a lot too conservative. I've been thi
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:20:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
...
> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?).
...
Assuming 1 page = 4k, and number of pages
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that
>>> have = operators but no useful < operator.
>>
>> Hm. Right now I think that would ba
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:41:53 -0500,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So one of the items on the TODO list is "Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
> > aggregates (Tom)"
>
> It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try.
>
> > The neat thing is that hash
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about
> tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too
> conservative,
It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we
should adjust the defaults.
The
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > > > > > Who will actually hold the key? Where will it be physically kept?
> > > >
> > > > Good question but can usually be addressed.
> > >
> > > It can be addressed, but how well? This is another big
I've tested all the win32 versions of postgres I can get my hands on
(cygwin and not), and my general feeling is that they have problems with
insert performance with fsync() turned on, probably the fault of the os.
Select performance is not so much affected.
This is easily solved with transactions
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So one of the items on the TODO list is "Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
> aggregates (Tom)"
It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try.
> The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that
> have = operators but no useful < opera
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is already in 7.4. You could try it out by building from CVS.
> From the HISTORY file:
> System can use either hash- or sort-based strategy for grouped
> aggregation
Ooh, doing that now. Thanks.
--
greg
---(e
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:48:11 -0500,
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So one of the items on the TODO list is "Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
> aggregates (Tom)"
>
> I'm finding this would benefit a lot of my queries. Most of the time seems to
> be going into sorts for group by c
So one of the items on the TODO list is "Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
aggregates (Tom)"
I'm finding this would benefit a lot of my queries. Most of the time seems to
be going into sorts for group by clauses. I don't know how long it would take
to build a hash of course, but I suspect it woul
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
