Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_buffercache

2005-03-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Andrew Dunstan wrote: It fixes the build error on Windows - haven't tried because i don't have time, but I know it won't work on Cygwin, because WIN32 isn't (usually) defined on Cygwin - see previous almost endless discussions. Yes - I recall that discussion a while ago. This patch should sort the

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_buffercache

2005-03-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Mark Kirkwood wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: It fixes the build error on Windows - haven't tried because i don't have time, but I know it won't work on Cygwin, because WIN32 isn't (usually) defined on Cygwin - see previous almost endless discussions. Yes - I recall

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_buffercache

2005-03-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Andrew Dunstan wrote: ... is apparently broken for Windows and Cygwin. See for example http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lorisdt=2005-03-16%2001:55:33 cheers hmmm - never tried to compile it on win32! I am getting http 502 from the above url, so I will have a go at building on

Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP

2005-03-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: Would those of you with access to other DBMSes try this: create table tab (col integer); select 1 from tab having 1=0; select 1 from tab having 1=1; insert into tab values(1); insert into tab values(2); select 1 from tab having 1=0; select 1 from tab having 1=1; I claim that a

Re: [HACKERS] Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

2005-02-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: The question is whether we are willing to back-patch a fairly large amount of not-very-well-tested code into 8.0. See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-02/msg00123.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-02/msg00127.php

Re: [HACKERS] Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0)

2005-02-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:55:38AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: I still suspect that the correct way to do it would not be to use the single correlation, but 2 stats - one for estimating how sequential/random accesses would be; and one for estimating the number

Re: [HACKERS] Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

2005-02-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Andrew Dunstan wrote: There is no news in the problem you're complaining of. It's completely known and documented. You've stated before that you've been using PostgreSQL for years - why is this suddenly so urgent that we have to drop everything and backpatch old releases? Please move along,

Re: [HACKERS] enforcing a plan (in brief)

2005-02-14 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Although this is all true, consider that adding hints will mean that the Pg developers *never* get bug reports to drive the optimizer improvement process. This will have the effect of stagnating its development. I think this would be a bad thing :-) As an aside note that DB2 UDB does not let you

Re: [HACKERS] correlation in pg_stats

2005-02-08 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually [EMAIL PROTECTED], is Mark Woodward. Pleased to meet you. :) (I hate using my name on lists like this because of spammers) Not to be confused with me :-) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list

Re: [HACKERS] Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0)

2005-02-07 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Maybe I am missing something - ISTM that you can increase your statistics target for those larger tables to obtain a larger (i.e. better) sample. regards Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any and all random sampling assumes a degree of uniform distribution. This is the

Re: [HACKERS] Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0)

2005-02-07 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, the behavior observed could be changed by altering the sample size for a table. I submit that an arbitrary fixed sample size is not a good base for the analyzer, but that the sample size should be based on the size of the table or some calculation of its

Re: [HACKERS] Patch Count?

2005-02-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Marc G. Fournier wrote: please let me know the URL for the message, so that I can see what it was overlooked, and see if I can't improve the 'search' ... Marc - here is one I submitted that was not picked up :-) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-01/msg00145.php regards Mark

Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

2005-01-23 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you need to maintain it.

Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent

2005-01-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote: (snippage) For 8.0.x, I wonder if it would be better to just replace ARC with LRU. Sequential scans will still flood the cache, but I don't view that as an enormous problem. Agree with everything apart from the idea that

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Michael Fuhr wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: SELECT delitel(100, 1); Mean times over the last five of six runs on my poor 500MHz FreeBSD 4.11-PRERELEASE box: 6741 ms 7.4.6 (from FreeBSD ports collection) 14427 ms 8.0.0rc5 (from CVS source) Looks like

Re: [HACKERS] FATAL: catalog is missing 1 attribute(s) for relid

2005-01-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Marc G. Fournier wrote: What the client did was a 'delete from pg_attribute where ... ' ... The database is a 7.4.2 one ... my first thought was one of the older standbys ... rebuild the schema and move the data files into place over top of that ... but of course, 7.3 and beyond are OID based

Re: [HACKERS] FATAL: catalog is missing 1 attribute(s) for relid

2005-01-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Marc, In case you don't work out a better way to sort this, I can reproduce and fix the error 'catalog is missing n attribute(s) for relid 16396' caused by directly deleting (part of) pg_attribute: Setup : $ initdb $ pg_ctl start $ createdb test Backup : $ pg_ctl stop $ tar -czvf pgdata.tar.gz

Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior

2004-12-28 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: well, I usually get results that differ by that much from run to run. Probably you ran in to more checkpoints on the second test. Also, did you reinitialize the bench database with pgbench -i ? I destroyed the database and recreated it. The only way I managed to

Re: [HACKERS] bgwriter changes

2004-12-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Mark Kirkwood wrote: It occurs to me that cranking up the number of transactions (say 1000-10) and seeing if said regression persists would be interesting. This would give the smoothing effect of the bgwriter (plus the ARC) a better chance to shine. I ran a few of these over the weekend

Re: [HACKERS] bgwriter changes

2004-12-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon Riggs wrote: 100pct.patch (SR) Test results to date: 1. Mark Kirkwood ([HACKERS] [Testperf-general] BufferSync and bgwriter) pgbench 1xCPU 1xDisk shared_buffers=1 showed 8.0RC1 had regressed compared with 7.4.6, but patch improved performance significantly against 8.0RC1 It occurs

Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] BufferSync and bgwriter

2004-12-12 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon, I am seeing a reasonably reproducible performance boost after applying your patch (I'm not sure if that was one of the main objectives, but it certainly is nice). I *was* seeing a noticeable decrease between 7.4.6 and 8.0.0RC1 running pgbench. However, after applying your patch, 8.0 is

Re: [HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites

2004-11-24 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I think a summary of where the discussion went might be helpful (especially for me after a week or so away doing perl). There were a number of approaches suggested, which I will attempt to summarize in a hand wavy fashion - (apologies for any misrepresentation caused): i) Rewrite max/min

[HACKERS] Plperl Safe version check fails for Safe 2.09

2004-11-23 Thread Mark Kirkwood
It seems that the check in src/pl/plperl/plperl.c eval_pv((safe_version 2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE); is not working quite as expected (CVS HEAD from today): I have Safe.pm at version 2.09, yet any plperl function I run fails with : ERROR: error from function: trusted perl functions

Re: [HACKERS] Plperl Safe version check fails for Safe 2.09

2004-11-23 Thread Mark Kirkwood
A bit more thinking led me to try: float safe_version; ... eval_pv((safe_version (float)2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE); which seems to fix the issue. (after all float *should* be accurate enough in this case) cheers Mark P.s : trivial patch attached Andrew Dunstan wrote: Could

[HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites generally)

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I am looking at implementing this TODO item. e.g. (max case): rewrite SELECT max(foo) FROM bar as SELECT foo FROM bar ORDER BY foo DESC LIMIT 1 if there is an index on bar(foo) Suggestions about the most suitable point in the parser/planner stage to perform this sort of rewrite would be most

Re: [HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: A more radical way of handling it would be to detect the relevance of an indexscan in indxpath.c and generate a special kind of Path node; this would not generalize to other sorts of things as you were hoping, but I'm unconvinced that the mechanism is going to be very

Re: [HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
, and if that works well, then look at extending to more complex rewrites. What do you think? Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:48:49AM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: I am looking at implementing this TODO item. e.g. (max case): rewrite SELECT max(foo) FROM bar as SELECT foo FROM bar ORDER

Re: [HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
the best approach. regards Mark Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 17:57:42 +1300, Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your example and ones like : SELECT max(foo), count(foo) FROM bar SELECT max(a.foo1), max(b.foo2) FROM bar1 AS a NATURAL JOIN bar2 AS b have made me realize

Re: [HACKERS] MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Probably for a small table, where the machinery of reading the index, followed by checking the table for non-visible tuples is more costly than just scanning the table! regards Mark John Hansen wrote: Why not just change the function all together to 'select $1 from $2 order by $1 desc limit 1;'

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Recover mode in pg_ctl (in 8.0)

2004-11-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I like it - nice and simple, but targets a large (and likely) foot gun situation. regards Mark Simon Riggs wrote: If a further pg_ctl mode, recover, were implemented, this would allow a fail safe mode for recovery. e.g.pg_ctl -D datadir recover pg_ctl could then check for the existence of a

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Recover mode in pg_ctl (in 8.0)

2004-11-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
While this is nice, it will not help you if the restoration directory is different from your archive directory. That is : restore_command in recovery.conf fetches from somewhere other than where archive_command in postgresql.conf copied. I am not sure how likely this situation is, but setting

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Recover mode in pg_ctl (in 8.0)

2004-11-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I was thinking that even mildly experienced folks could benefit from a helpful sanity check. Typically the need to recover a system never comes at a good time, and features that help prevent silly mistakes are a great stress saver. As an aside, while testing recovery during pre beta, I think I

Re: [HACKERS] plans for bitmap indexes?

2004-10-27 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Greg Stark wrote: I think what you're trying to accomplish is better accomplished through partitioned tables. Then the user can decide which keys to use to partition the data and the optimizer can use the data to completely exclude some partitions from consideration. And it wouldn't interfere with

Re: [HACKERS] plans for bitmap indexes?

2004-10-27 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Mark Kirkwood wrote: I think that bitmap indexes provide a flexible may to get fact access to the result set that should be *fast* access tosorry ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http

Re: [HACKERS] plans for bitmap indexes?

2004-10-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon Riggs wrote: I believe that the benefit of on-disk bitmap indexes is supposed to be reduced storage size (compared to btree). The main problem is the need for the table to be read-only. Until we have partitioning, we wouldn't be able to easily guarantee parts of a table as being

Re: [HACKERS] plans for bitmap indexes?

2004-10-17 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: I believe that the term bitmap index is also used with a different meaning wherein it actually does describe a particular kind of on-disk index structure, with one bit per table row. IMHO building in-memory bitmaps (the first idea) is a very good idea to pursue for Postgres. I'm

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling

2004-08-24 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Greg Stark wrote: It's only allowed when the transaction is in READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level. Something Postgres doesn't currently support. In fact I'm not aware of any SQL database that supports it, though I'm sure there's one somewhere. FYI - DB2 supports this isolation level, I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Coming soon: PG 7.4.4, 7.3.7, 7.2.5

2004-08-12 Thread Mark Kirkwood
The pg_dump fix in 8.0 that stops the destruction of existing users in the target database via DELETE FROM pg_shadow WHERE usesysid (... would be great! regards Mark Tom Lane wrote: Comments anyone? Backpatches for other bugs? ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Coming soon: PG 7.4.4, 7.3.7, 7.2.5

2004-08-12 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Sorry - I meant pg_dump*all* rather than pg_dump. Mark Kirkwood wrote: The pg_dump fix in 8.0 that stops the destruction of existing users in the target database via DELETE FROM pg_shadow WHERE usesysid (... would be great! regards Mark Tom Lane wrote: Comments anyone? Backpatches for other

Re: [HACKERS] fsync vs open_sync

2004-08-09 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Just out of interest, what happens to the difference if you use *ext3* (perhaps with data=writeback) regards Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did a little test on the various options of fsync. ... create table testndx (value integer, name varchar); create index testndx_val on testndx (value);

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Ok - that is a much better way of doing it! regards Mark Tom Lane wrote: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you use a readable file you will also need a feature for restore (or a tool) to create an appropriate pg_control file, or are you intending to still require that

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-29 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I was wondering about this point - might it not be just as reasonable for the copied file to *be* an exact image of pg_control? Then a very simple variant of pg_controldata (or maybe even just adding switches to pg_controldata itself) would enable the relevant info to be extracted P.s : would

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-25 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Looks good to me. Log file numbering scheme seems to have changed - is that part of the fix too?. Tom Lane wrote: This is done in CVS tip. Mark, could you retest to verify it's fixed? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1:

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Great that it's not fundamental - and hopefully with this discovery, the probability you mentioned is being squashed towards zero a bit more :-) Don't let this early bug detract from what is really a superb piece of work! regards Mark Tom Lane wrote: In any case this isn't a fundamental bug,

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
FYI - I can confirm that the patch fixes main issue. Simon Riggs wrote: This was a very confusing test...Here's what I think happened: . The included patch doesn't attempt to address those issues, yet. Best regards, Simon Riggs ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-20 Thread Mark Kirkwood
This is presumably a standard feature of any PITR design - if the failure event destroys the current transaction log, then you can only recover transactions that committed in the last *archived* log. regards Mark Simon Riggs wrote: The test works, but gives what looks like strange results: the

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I have been doing some re-testing with CVS HEAD from about 1 hour ago using the simplified example posted previously. It is quite interesting: i) create the table as: CREATE TABLE test0 (filler TEXT); and COPY 100 000 rows on length 109, then recovery succeeds. ii) create the table as: CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-18 Thread Mark Kirkwood
There are some silly bugs in the script: - forgot to export PGDATA and PATH after changing them - forgot to mention the need to edit test.sql (COPY line needs path to dump file) Apologies - I will submit a fixed version a little later regards Mark Mark Kirkwood wrote: A script to run the whole

Re: [HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-18 Thread Mark Kirkwood
fixed. Mark Kirkwood wrote: There are some silly bugs in the script: - forgot to export PGDATA and PATH after changing them - forgot to mention the need to edit test.sql (COPY line needs path to dump file) Apologies - I will submit a fixed version a little later regards Mark Mark Kirkwood wrote

[HACKERS] PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

2004-07-17 Thread Mark Kirkwood
on the second log (and gives the zero length redo at 0/1E0 message). Let me know if I can do any more legwork on this (I am considering re-compiling with WAL_DEBUG now that example is simpler) regards Mark Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:47, Mark Kirkwood wrote: I tried what I thought

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I tried what I thought was a straightforward scenario, and seem to have broken it :-( Here is the little tale 1) initdb 2) set archive_mode and archive_dest in postgresql.conf 3) startup 4) create database called 'test' 5) connect to 'test' and type 'checkpoint' 6) backup PGDATA using 'tar

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon Riggs wrote: First, thanks for sticking with it to test this. I've not received such a message myself - this is interesting. Is it possible to copy that directory to one side and re-run the test? Add another parameter in postgresql.conf called archive_debug = true Does it happen identically

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Couldn't agree more. Maybe we should have made more noise :-) Glen Parker wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 23:18, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: Thanks for the vote of confidence, on or off list. too many people spend a lot of money for proprietary databases, just for

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Simon Riggs wrote: So far: I've tried to re-create the problem as exactly as I can, but it works for me. This is clearly an important case to chase down. I assume that this is the very first time you tried recovery? Second and subsequent recoveries using the same set have a potential loophole,

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

2004-07-14 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I noticed that compiling with 5_1 patch applied fails due to XLOG_archive_dir being removed from xlog.c , but src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c still uses it. I did the following to tablecmds.c : 5408c5408 extern char XLOG_archive_dir[]; --- extern char

[HACKERS] Compile Failue on win32 - pipe.c using ereport

2004-06-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
For the past few days I have experienced compile failure with CVS HEAD on win32. The culprit is src/port/pipe.c which uses ereport() when it only #includes c.h. I cured the error by #including postgres.h - but after a bit of thought suspect that utils/elog.h is all that is necessary! Is

Re: [HACKERS] Compile Failue on win32 - pipe.c using ereport

2004-06-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
You are right! (goes away to sign up) Merlin Moncure wrote: p.s. this probably belongs on win32 hackers list. Merlin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE ... SET TABLESPACE

2004-06-21 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I don't know if this provides any more info than you already have - but is my last few lines from a single process backend run with valgrind : ==19666== Syscall param write(buf) contains uninitialised or unaddressable byte(s) ==19666==at 0x404D94F8: __GI___libc_write (in /lib/libc-2.3.2.so)

Re: [HACKERS] Improving postgresql.conf

2004-06-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
This seems like a nice idea - It might even be worth targeting a couple pf specific ranges - e.g : machines with 1G RAM and 4G RAM ( medium are large come to mind, I know it's a bit like that other database product we know of but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad!) Mark Christopher

Re: [HACKERS] Improving postgresql.conf

2004-06-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Oh dear, a lot of typos here, hopefully still decipherable... apologies. Mark Mark Kirkwood wrote: This seems like a nice idea - It might even be worth targeting a couple pf specific ranges - e.g : machines with 1G RAM and 4G RAM ( medium are large come to mind, I know it's a bit like

Re: [HACKERS] I just got it: PostgreSQL Application Server -- a

2004-06-14 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Joshua D. Drake wrote: The PostgreSQL Enhanced Server (How's that name? Maybe we call it Zerver and use PEZ?) idea is how to take the excellent core of PostgreSQL and productize it in much the same way distributions take the Linux kernel and may a GNU/Linux system. It would seem to me that

Re: [HACKERS] Frequently updated tables

2004-06-14 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been talking about two types of problems which are both based on PostgreSQL's behavior with frequently updated tables. Summary table: In the single row table system, you have to vacuum very requently, and this affects performance. Frequently updated tables: think

Re: [HACKERS] Frequently updated tables

2004-06-08 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best phrasing would be the accumulating overhead of deletes and updates. Yes. Are you using 7.3? I am asking because in 7.3 high update / delete tables could suffer (index and toast) bloat that was untamable via (lazy) VACUUM and FSM. I believe this is fixed in

Re: [HACKERS]

2004-05-24 Thread Mark Kirkwood
The warn 'em in several places seems like a very good approach. regards Mark Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: There will always be people who won't read the notes, or ignore the notes, as there will always be people doing all sorts of stupid things that we can't protect them from. There is only so much

Re: [HACKERS] Call for 7.5 feature completion

2004-05-23 Thread Mark Kirkwood
We could perhaps do something similar to the Apache 1.3 win platform notes, where they (still) say *something* like : Apache on windows is not as stable as on unix... but is being actively improved all the time This is a bit more positive than it's dangerous!. As for people not reading the

[HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile failure on Freebsd 4.9

2004-05-11 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Fresh checkout of CVS HEAD yesterday, updated today : $ ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql/7.5 $ make gmake[4]: Entering directory `/usr/home/postgres/develop/c/pgsql/src/backend/access/nbtree' gcc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] TPC H data

2004-04-28 Thread Mark Kirkwood
What scale factor TPC H are you importing? additionally - might be worth giving the specs of the machine you are doing this on. (I seem to recall trying this with Pg 7.2 a while ago without this issue, mind you - think I had ~1G of Ram and used the scale fact 1 dataset, i.e 1G) regards Mark

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Joe Conway wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Personally I rely quite a lot on setting PGDATA to keep straight which installation I'm currently working with, so I'm not going to be happy with a redesign that eliminates that variable without providing an adequate substitute :-( I'll second that. I'll

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: Let me tell you the compromise I thought of. First, we put the config files (postgresql.conf, pg_hba.conf, pg_ident.conf) in data/etc by default. Sorry Bruce, I was being slow :-) , I was thinking you were going to associate the config files with the binary

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ii) I think the -C switch *WITH* the -D switch has viable usability. Consider this, you are testing two different database layouts and/or RAID controllers. You could easily bounce back and forth from *identical* configurations like this: Convenient indeed, but I would

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: I think if you spelled the subdir name config rather than etc, it would be more obvious what's what. How about 'conf' - (familiar to anyone who has used apache or tomcat ) regards Mark ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-12 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: Mark Kirkwood wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: My idea was to put config files in /usr/local/pgsql/data/etc, not pgsql/etc. We don't put Unix configuration files in /, etc put them in /etc. Sorry, I missed the 'data' pathname. However - I may be a bit slow

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-11 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I seems to me that the existing situation is actually correct : The configuration is a property of the initialized database cluster, so a logical place for it is in the root of said cluster. It is *not* a property of the installed binary distribution (e.g /usr/local/pgsql/etc) - as you may

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-11 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO my patch can do this in a self documenting way, thus making it easier to do, i.e. postmaster -C /etc/postgres/fundb.conf postmaster -C /etc/postgres/testdb.conf I think that is far more intuitive than: postmaster -D /some/path/who/knows/where/fundb postmaster -D

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL configuration

2004-04-11 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: My idea was to put config files in /usr/local/pgsql/data/etc, not pgsql/etc. We don't put Unix configuration files in /, etc put them in /etc. Sorry, I missed the 'data' pathname. However - I may be a bit slow - but I do not see how this will handle the situation where

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile failure on Freebsd 4.9

2004-02-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Just updated now. compiles. fast fix :-) Tom Lane wrote: I plan to fix that later tonight if no one beats me to it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Re: [HACKERS] FYI , Intel CC and PostgreSQL , benchmark by pgsql

2004-01-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
It would be interesting to see the results if you do this test again with : - scaling factor somewhere in the 100-300 range (so the generated db ~= your ram amount) - number of clients somewhere in 10-100 - number of transactions somewhere in 1000-1000 best wishes Mark P.s - Are you using the

Re: [HACKERS] psql \d option list overloaded

2004-01-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Couldn't agree more - syntax like SHOW TABLES; is inituitive and somehow right - [chuckles] - Mysql does not have *everything* wrong! regards Mark Bruce Momjian wrote: I like the idea of adding a new syntax to show that information using simple SQL command syntax, and putting it in the

Re: [HACKERS] *sigh*

2003-12-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Could certainly do that - a scalar function that returns reltuples from pg_class. I was hoping to do 2 additional things: i) provide better accuracy than the last ANALYZE ii) make it behave like an aggregate So I wanted to be able to use estimated_count as you would use count, i.e: SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] *sigh*

2003-12-29 Thread Mark Kirkwood
is possible or reasonable - others who know feel free to chip in :-) regards Mark Randolf Richardson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Kirkwood) wrote in comp.databases.postgresql.hackers: [sNip] How about: Implement a function estimated_count that can be used instead of count. It could use

Re: [HACKERS] *sigh*

2003-12-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Shridhar Daithankar wrote: Something like select reltuples from pg_class where relname='foo'? Shridhar [chuckles] - I had envisaged something more accurate that the last ANALYZE, estimate_count would effectively *do* acquire_sample_rows() then and there for you... regards Mark

Re: [HACKERS] *sigh*

2003-12-03 Thread Mark Kirkwood
How about: Implement a function estimated_count that can be used instead of count. It could use something like the algorithm in src/backend/commands/analyze.c to get a reasonably accurate psuedo count quickly. The advantage of this approach is that count still means (exact)count (for your

Re: [HACKERS] Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities

2003-10-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Finger or brain trouble, here is the correction : NUMBER - INTEGER when transporting schemas from Oracle to Pg. (This needs a little care - as NUMBER in Oracle has bigger *precision* than INTEGER in Pg) Thinking about this a bit more, its probably fine to just substitute NUMERIC for NUMBER,

Re: [HACKERS] Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities

2003-10-03 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I think he means that you can do this in oracle : CREATE TABLE test (id NUMBER); Oracle treats NUMBER as NUMBER(40) I think. This seems to be an example of Oracle making up standards as they go along - do we want to copy this sort of thing ? I usually just run a substitution of NUMBER(..) -

[HACKERS] dump cache summary

2003-09-08 Thread Mark Kirkwood
As part of attempting to gain an understanding of how Postgres works, I wanted to see if I could display a summary of what relations were using pages in the cache. Having done that, I was all set to trash the code when I wondered if it might be useful in its own right... Here is a sample of

Re: [HACKERS] Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta?

2003-09-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Hans, You are right about the startup memory - here is the top line for a few seconds after startup : PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 10116 postgres 15 0 3816 3816 3180 R 33.8 1.0 0:01.03 postmaster seems that VIRT, RES, SHR all get the

Re: [HACKERS] Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta?

2003-09-01 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: I can hardly imagine that the backend started working with 9mb of memory. what did you do that PostgreSQL needed so much memory from the beginning??? are you using the default settings? usually the postmaster does not need more than 3mb at startup (in this scenario).

Re: [HACKERS] Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta?

2003-08-31 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Stephan Szabo wrote: I rebuild without debug, and ran just the start/insert/commit sequence over and over and noticed that on my machine it looked to grow as above but that if I let it go long enough it seemed to basically stop (or at least the growth was slow enough to go without notice as

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone working on better transaction locking?

2003-04-12 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Greg Stark wrote: Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But database is not webserver. It is not suppose to handle tons of concurrent requests. That is a fundamental difference. And in one fell swoop you've dismissed the entire OLTP database industry. Have you ever called a

Re: [HACKERS] Oracle rant

2003-01-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Fred Zellinger wrote: I also am a Linux Nut and use Postgres whenever possible because I like the freedom of access to the HACKERS mailing list...something only a few highly renound DBA snobs have with Oracle. Indeed, I think this is a significant component of the appeal of open source I

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone have a fresh Solaris 8 SPARC system to create

2003-01-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Justin Clift wrote: Hi guys, Have created a Solaris 8 Intel package for PostgreSQL 7.3.1, but don't have any SPARC boxes here any more. Does anyone have a SPARC box handy that would be available for compiling PostgreSQL 7.3.1 on? It would need to be Solaris 8 (or maybe 9), and have things

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone have a fresh Solaris 8 SPARC system to create

2003-01-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Lamar Owen wrote: On Wednesday 15 January 2003 09:20, Justin Clift wrote: Sound like a plan? Will also need someone else with a Solaris 8 SPARC system to try the packages out too, just in case there are weird library dependencies happening that might catch us out. I have access to

Re: [HACKERS] Oracle rant

2003-01-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
snippage The Oracle system stops from time to time because of various arcane reasons. You get the error message, look it up on alltheweb.com, and fix it. The whole system is bogus. It DEMANDS a full time DBA. PostgreSQL does not. I could be accused of being cynical here (gosh)... but I

Re: [HACKERS] Oracle rant

2003-01-15 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: I'm just saying that there are *some* small arcane details in postgres, too (although, at least, they don't affect stability, just performance). Indeed you are right... Pg has its own collection of arcane details too, but hopefully the culture of

[HACKERS] Multiple Key Clustering In Db2 8.1 - Interesting FYI

2002-10-22 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Dear hackers, I have recently been playing with DB2 8.1 Beta. It has introduced a feature to enable index clustering on more than one key. This reminded me of a previous thread on HACKERS about index access anding/bitmaps in Firebird. So anyway, here is a little snip from the 8.1 manual as a

Re: [HACKERS] (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...

2002-10-03 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: Has anyone done the corresponding experiments on the other DBMSes to identify exactly when they allow CURRENT_TIMESTAMP to advance ? I have Db2 on hand and examined CURRENT TIMESTAMP in an sql procedure. (IBM have implemented it without the _ ) The short of it is that

Re: [HACKERS] Improving speed of copy

2002-10-02 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Have you tried this with Oracle or similar commercial database? I have timed COPY/LOAD times for Postgresql/Mysql/Oracle/Db2 - the rough comparison is : Db2 and Mysql fastest (Db2 slightly faster) Oracle approx twice as slow as Db2 Postgresql about 3.5-4 times slower than Db2 However

Re: [HACKERS] Script to compute random page cost

2002-09-11 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Curt Sampson wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Hm, it appears we've both been working on something similar. However, I've just released version 0.2 of randread, which has the following features: funny how often that happens...( I think its often worth the effort

Re: [HACKERS] Script to compute random page cost

2002-09-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
I was attempting to measure random page cost a while ago - I used three programs in this archive : http://techdocs.postgresql.org/markir/download/benchtool/ It writes a single big file and seems to give more realistic measurements ( like 6 for a Solaris scsi system and 10 for a Linux ide

Re: [HACKERS] Script to compute random page cost

2002-09-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Tom Lane wrote: Perhaps it's time to remind people that what we want to measure is the performance seen by a C program issuing write() and read() commands, transferring 8K at a time, on a regular Unix filesystem Yes...and at the risk of being accused of marketing ;-) , that is exactly what

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >