Re: [HACKERS] Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Might be worthwhile to try to get beta2 out as quickly as we can after the > changes are in, to minimize the number of people who will need it? I'd like to get the locale/encoding issues straightened out, and also get the contrib-tsearch-examples stuff in, before we think about beta2. But hopefully that won't take very long. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] 8.3 full text search docs
Andy,
note that documentation is discussed in the pgsql-docs list and patches
usually are submitted to the pgsql-patches list. Nice to see both new
sections, by the way.
A Diumenge 14 Octubre 2007, andy va escriure:
> I have two doc updates I'd like to offer. I see we have two example
> sections: creating rule-based dict's and creating parsers. When I was
> starting I would have liked to see an example usage.
>
> I'd like to offer: "example usage" and "Upgrading".
> This is my first draft, if anyone has suggestions I'd be interested in
> hearing them. Also, I'm not sure where or who to send this to, so I
> hope -hacker is ok.
>
> - Example Usage -
> Staring a new project with Full Text Searching is easy. There is
> nothing to install anymore, its all built in (in fact, don't install the
> contrib module tsearch2 because it will conflict with the tsearch2 built
> into the core).
>
> We need to add a new column of type tsvector to the table you'd like to
> search. In this example we'll use a table called notes. If your table
> exists use:
>
> alter table notes add searchvec tsvector;
>
> If not use:
>
> create table notes (
> rowid integer,
> note text,
> searchvec tsvector
> );
>
> The searchvec column is what we will use for searching, so you probably
> want to create an index on it... from another place in the manual:
>
> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/textsearch-indexes.html)
>
> GiST indexes are very good for dynamic data and fast if the number of
> unique words (lexemes) is under 100,000,
> GIN indexes are best for static data with +100,000 lexemes.
>
> For our example, I'll create a gist index:
>
> create index notesvec on notes using gist(searchvec);
>
> If you have existing data, we need to fill the searchvec column:
>
> update notes set searchvec = to_tsvector(note);
>
> After the update, any rows are inserted or updated will not have their
> searchvec column set automatically, for that we need to create a trigger:
>
> create trigger notevecupdate
> before insert or update on notes
> for each row
> execute procedure
>tsvector_update_trigger(searchvec, 'pg_catalog.english', note);
>
>
> Some data:
> insert into notes(rowid, note) values(1, 'this is a test');
>
> insert into notes(rowid, note)
> values(2, 'I do not like green eggs and ham');
>
> insert into notes(rowid, note) values(3, 'the cat in the hat');
>
> insert into notes(rowid, note)
> values(4, 'rage against the dying of the light');
>
> And now we can query it:
>
> select * from notes where searchvec @@ to_tsquery('light');
>
> or
>
> select * from notes, to_tsquery('test') as q where searchvec @@ q;
>
> writing it this way lets you reuse the tsquery "q" like this:
>
> select note, ts_rank(searchvec, q)
> from notes, to_tsquery('test') as q
> where searchvec @@ q
> order by ts_rank(searchvec, q);
> - Example Usage -
>
>
>
> - Upgrade from prior versions -
>
> When tsearch2 was put into core, some functions and types were renamed,
> among other things. A simple backup and restore will not work to
> migrate your database from versions below 8.3 to 8.3.
>
> In general, the way to do it is backup all your data without the
> tsearch2 stuff, restore just the data, then recreate the tsearch2 stuff
> by hand.
>
> (Its easier to think of this as an upgrade from tsearch2 to tsearch3,
> but without the whole renaming it to tsearch3 thing)
>
> To make it a little easier, there is a way using the pg_restore to
> selective restore everything that is not in the old tsearch2.
>
> First you must use "pg_dump -Fc" to backup your existing database.
>
> Then we will create an item list of things we want to restore using this
> perl script. It will strip out all the things that look like tsearch2,
> and return (to stdout) a list of things you should restore.
>
> For example:
>
> pg_dump -Fc -h oldserver -f ubberbase.bak ubberbase
> perl maketoc.pl ubberbase.bak > toc
> # now restore just the items in toc
> pg_restore -Fc --create -d postgres --use-list toc -f ubberbse.bak
>
> There is one thing that will fail, that's the trigger you used to update
> the tsvector column. Its because the function tsearch2 was renamed to
> tsvector_update_trigger. You'll need to recreate the trigger by hand.
>
> Now that the structures and data are restored, you'll need to go through
> and redo the tsearch2 stuff by hand.
>
> After you get the database fixed up, you'll also need to update your
> client programs (php, perl, etc). For the most part, just renameing
> things (like rank to ts_rank) should be all that's required.
>
>
> Oleg Bartunov has an incomplete list of items that have been renamed:
>
> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/Tsearch2_83_changes
>
> - Upgrade from prior versions -
--
Albert Cervera i Areny
http://www.NaN-tic.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an
[HACKERS] ABIs are hard
Hm, I suppose this is expected. I always hated the idea that libraries could introduce new symbols without an soname bump but obviously nobody's going to be interested in an soname bump today... ! /home/stark/src/local-HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/./tmp_check/install//usr/local/pgsql/bin/psql: symbol lookup error: /home/stark/src/local-HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/./tmp_check/install//usr/local/pgsql/bin/psql: undefined symbol: pg_valid_server_encoding_id -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[HACKERS] 8.3 full text search docs
I have two doc updates I'd like to offer. I see we have two example
sections: creating rule-based dict's and creating parsers. When I was
starting I would have liked to see an example usage.
I'd like to offer: "example usage" and "Upgrading".
This is my first draft, if anyone has suggestions I'd be interested in
hearing them. Also, I'm not sure where or who to send this to, so I
hope -hacker is ok.
- Example Usage -
Staring a new project with Full Text Searching is easy. There is
nothing to install anymore, its all built in (in fact, don't install the
contrib module tsearch2 because it will conflict with the tsearch2 built
into the core).
We need to add a new column of type tsvector to the table you'd like to
search. In this example we'll use a table called notes. If your table
exists use:
alter table notes add searchvec tsvector;
If not use:
create table notes (
rowid integer,
note text,
searchvec tsvector
);
The searchvec column is what we will use for searching, so you probably
want to create an index on it... from another place in the manual:
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/textsearch-indexes.html)
GiST indexes are very good for dynamic data and fast if the number of
unique words (lexemes) is under 100,000,
GIN indexes are best for static data with +100,000 lexemes.
For our example, I'll create a gist index:
create index notesvec on notes using gist(searchvec);
If you have existing data, we need to fill the searchvec column:
update notes set searchvec = to_tsvector(note);
After the update, any rows are inserted or updated will not have their
searchvec column set automatically, for that we need to create a trigger:
create trigger notevecupdate
before insert or update on notes
for each row
execute procedure
tsvector_update_trigger(searchvec, 'pg_catalog.english', note);
Some data:
insert into notes(rowid, note) values(1, 'this is a test');
insert into notes(rowid, note)
values(2, 'I do not like green eggs and ham');
insert into notes(rowid, note) values(3, 'the cat in the hat');
insert into notes(rowid, note)
values(4, 'rage against the dying of the light');
And now we can query it:
select * from notes where searchvec @@ to_tsquery('light');
or
select * from notes, to_tsquery('test') as q where searchvec @@ q;
writing it this way lets you reuse the tsquery "q" like this:
select note, ts_rank(searchvec, q)
from notes, to_tsquery('test') as q
where searchvec @@ q
order by ts_rank(searchvec, q);
- Example Usage -
- Upgrade from prior versions -
When tsearch2 was put into core, some functions and types were renamed,
among other things. A simple backup and restore will not work to
migrate your database from versions below 8.3 to 8.3.
In general, the way to do it is backup all your data without the
tsearch2 stuff, restore just the data, then recreate the tsearch2 stuff
by hand.
(Its easier to think of this as an upgrade from tsearch2 to tsearch3,
but without the whole renaming it to tsearch3 thing)
To make it a little easier, there is a way using the pg_restore to
selective restore everything that is not in the old tsearch2.
First you must use "pg_dump -Fc" to backup your existing database.
Then we will create an item list of things we want to restore using this
perl script. It will strip out all the things that look like tsearch2,
and return (to stdout) a list of things you should restore.
For example:
pg_dump -Fc -h oldserver -f ubberbase.bak ubberbase
perl maketoc.pl ubberbase.bak > toc
# now restore just the items in toc
pg_restore -Fc --create -d postgres --use-list toc -f ubberbse.bak
There is one thing that will fail, that's the trigger you used to update
the tsvector column. Its because the function tsearch2 was renamed to
tsvector_update_trigger. You'll need to recreate the trigger by hand.
Now that the structures and data are restored, you'll need to go through
and redo the tsearch2 stuff by hand.
After you get the database fixed up, you'll also need to update your
client programs (php, perl, etc). For the most part, just renameing
things (like rank to ts_rank) should be all that's required.
Oleg Bartunov has an incomplete list of items that have been renamed:
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/Tsearch2_83_changes
- Upgrade from prior versions -
#!/usr/bin/perl
# pg_restore must be in the path
#
# we use pg_restore to get the toc (requires the backup be made with pg_dump
-Fc) from a backup
# create a newtoc with all the things that look like tsearch2 stuff stripped out
# so you can pg_restore -Fc -L newtoc ...
# syntax: xtract dumpfile.bak > newtoc
use strict;
my %list = ('gtsq' => 1,
'gtsq_in' => 1,
'gtsq_out' => 1,
'gtsvector' => 1,
'gtsvector_in' => 1,
'gtsvector_out' => 1,
'tsquery' => 1,
'tsquery_in' => 1,
'tsquery_out' => 1,
'tsvector' => 1,
'tsvector_in' => 1,
'tsvector_out' => 1,
'statinfo' => 1,
'tokenout' => 1,
'tokentype'
Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql partitioning problems & suggested solutions
"SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now for > SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE b='2' > > it should know to access only Foo_2, I suppose it could be done > with a rule, but that should work even if b='2' is implicitly > given (not just if b = ) is stated explicitly. This much already exists in Postgres. If you define constraints on the partitions with an expression like (b=2) and turn on the constraint_exclusion guc variable Postgres will do this. The rest of your message lists a number of other interesting avenues but I'm not sure it's the only way to go about accomplishing the things you need. I would be interested to know more generally what problems you anticipate with your application and what your needs are at a high level. The solutions you propose are pretty specific and there have been other techniques proposed in the past which may be more attractive than these specific solutions. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
[HACKERS] Postgresql partitioning problems & suggested solutions
We are presently investigating to migrate large (>10 TB) databases from Oracle to PostgreSQL. We find the need for table partitioning and the support of that is not good in PgSQL. We think the problem might be important enough to reach out to someone who might help us. Our idea is that a dedicated partitioning function would not be necessary if: - foreign keys could be defined to reference views (which in theory they should, according to C.J.Date.) - the query optimizer would be able to eliminate union clauses from select, update and insert statements based on the partitioning key. - an index could be built on a view (to make a global index accross partitions) With these 3 requirements met, I think all we would need for a partitioned table would be CREATE VIEW(a, b, c) Foo AS SELECT a, b, c FROM Foo_1 UNION ALL SELECT a, b, c FROM Foo_2 UNION ALL SELECT a, b, c FROM Foo_3 ; say that (a, b) is the primary key of Foo and (a) is the primary key of each partition and c is some other column we would like to index, we could CREATE INDEX Foo_c_idx ON Foo(c); Now for SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE b='2' it should know to access only Foo_2, I suppose it could be done with a rule, but that should work even if b='2' is implicitly given (not just if b = ) is stated explicitly. Do you think that can be done without too much disturbance in the pgsql sources? For another thing, how difficult would it be to provide for a complete insert&update ability on views? Basically to make the difference between a table and a view completely transparent? There is another feature We have often wanted, and think that can be done with such fully transparent views, i.e., ability to define "virtual" fields, i.e., one could totally avoid storing the partition key b (in above example) by: CREATE VIEW(a, b, c) Foo AS SELECT a, '1' as b, c FROM Foo_1 UNION ALL SELECT a, '2' as b, c FROM Foo_2 UNION ALL SELECT a, '3' as b, c FROM Foo_3 ; We have often wanted to put long constant identifiers into such "virtual" attributes that are only stored in the metadata and not redundantly held on disk. Thanks Sharmila Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/13/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I went through this article and it was good. Please have a look at it. > > http://www.databasecolumn.com/2007/09/one-size-fits-all.html > > This article was written by Michael Stonebraker, considered to be the > founder of our database. He has mentioned that the DBMS designed in 1970s > haven't changed according to the change that has happened in Hardware > landscape. The Vertica database(Monet is a open source version with the same > principle) makes use of the very same principle. Use more disk space, since > they are less costly and optimize the data warehousing. Sorry, but quoting Stonebraker (who has a *financial* interest in his statement), is pointless. Similarly, you can't directly compare his concepts to your case. IMHO, you're trying to get buy-in. In this group, unless you have a patch that proves something, you're generally out of luck. My suggestion is to start coding. You will find, as I did, that DSM is a better solution. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/13/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I accept that the indexes will be bigger in size for this approach. You > might need more disk-space and you might need more memory to accomodate the > same amount of information. But i think disk costs and memory costs have > come down a lot, People can afford to buy more disk and memory. But the only > fact that remains true is that the disk, the last mechanical device is slow > in addressing Random I/Os. So this proposal is aimed at occupying more > memory and disk space to reduce Random I/Os. Say, if we are accomodating 200 > tuples per index page in today's index(for a typical configuration), and as > you said in the worst case (only one index field), we will be occupying 100 > tuples per index page. But we would take away probably 100 random I/Os (say > with bitmap scan it reduces to 75). 1GB of memory is around $100 and 1GB of > disk is around $1. But one hour of Performance tuner would cost around $200 > :)). So that's the trade-off for the enterprises, if they want to shift > between the two indexes. I disagree. Even with the latest on-disk size enhancements, Postgres still has a substantially larger on-disk footprint than pretty much every other database. Like it or not, additional I/O costs are not something that should just be dismissed. Disregarding fundamental database issues (like increased I/O) leads me to believe that you don't have much experience tuning databases. As I have a bit of experience adding visibility to the indexes, I stand behind DSM. From an analytical standpoint, and given Postgres' MVCC design, it would be hard to beat a properly designed DSM in this area. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Hi, I went through this article and it was good. Please have a look at it. http://www.databasecolumn.com/2007/09/one-size-fits-all.html This article was written by Michael Stonebraker, considered to be the founder of our database. He has mentioned that the DBMS designed in 1970s haven't changed according to the change that has happened in Hardware landscape. The Vertica database(Monet is a open source version with the same principle) makes use of the very same principle. Use more disk space, since they are less costly and optimize the data warehousing. Even otherwise we are recommending Indexes with snapshot as an option. We are not replacing the current index scheme. So if someone feels that his database should run on lesser disk space, let them create the normal index. If he feels he can afford to have more redundant disk space, then he can create indexes with snapshots. We are reducing random I/Os at the cost of extra disk space. So definitely that's a good. But tech folks like us can better decide on something based on experiments, as Tom has pointed out. So let's see whether Indexes with snapshot is worth the trade-off in space. Thanks, Gokul. On 10/13/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I accept that the indexes will be bigger in size for this approach. You > > might need more disk-space and you might need more memory to accomodate > the > > same amount of information. But i think disk costs and memory costs have > > come down a lot, People can afford to buy more disk and memory. > > That's not how it works. We're not generally worried about people running > out > of disk or memory resources. But no matter how cheap they get people will > only > have what they have. We have to worry about running as fast as possible > for a > *given* amount of RAM or disk. > > Generally raising disk space usage results in a corresponding increase in > run > time. So an index that takes twice as much space on disk will consume > twice as > much time to consult as one that doesn't. You need to save enough time > elsewhere to make that up and then some to make it worthwhile. > > I think we are pretty set on having the DSM for vacuuming purposes so > you'll > also have to argue this approach will cover enough additional cases or be > better in some other way compared to using the DSM to be a win. > > -- > Gregory Stark > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >
Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I accept that the indexes will be bigger in size for this approach. You > might need more disk-space and you might need more memory to accomodate the > same amount of information. But i think disk costs and memory costs have > come down a lot, People can afford to buy more disk and memory. That's not how it works. We're not generally worried about people running out of disk or memory resources. But no matter how cheap they get people will only have what they have. We have to worry about running as fast as possible for a *given* amount of RAM or disk. Generally raising disk space usage results in a corresponding increase in run time. So an index that takes twice as much space on disk will consume twice as much time to consult as one that doesn't. You need to save enough time elsewhere to make that up and then some to make it worthwhile. I think we are pretty set on having the DSM for vacuuming purposes so you'll also have to argue this approach will cover enough additional cases or be better in some other way compared to using the DSM to be a win. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
> It seems that we are faced with a choice of two evils: > > 1. Accept that there's an ABI break and increment libpq.so's major > version number for 8.3. This will be a PITA for packagers, who will > have to carry a compatibility package to provide 8.2 libpq.so. > > 2. Renumber 8.3's encoding IDs to preserve compatibility with the > 8.2 values. It turns out that we can do that, but we will have to > force initdb because the contents of pg_database.encoding will change. > > I'm of the opinion that #2 is the lesser evil, but maybe I'm overly > influenced by my Red Hat packaging responsibilities --- I'll personally > have to spend time on a compatibility package if we go with #1. > Other opinions out there? #2 seems like a much better choice. A small inconvenience during beta is much better than one in the actual release. People running the beta expects us to try not to force initdb, but also that we'll do it if we have to. Might be worthwhile to try to get beta2 out as quickly as we can after the changes are in, to minimize the number of people who will need it? > Also, if we do #2 it means that we have the option to resolve the > contrib/txid mess by pushing txid into the core backend before beta2. > Any votes pro or con on that? Absolutely pro. /Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
