Re: [HACKERS] Hardware donation

2013-06-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 6/21/13 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> On 06/21/2013 09:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> >>> We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to >>> donate 2 of them to the community. >>> >>> There's nothing terribly spectacu

Re: [HACKERS] [Review] Add SPI_gettypmod() to return a field's typemod from a TupleDesc

2013-06-25 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Is this the latest patch you are targeting for 9.4 CF1 ? > > I am going to review it. > > From the comment, here is one issue you need to resolve first: > > *** exec_eval_datum(PLpgSQL_execstate *estat > *** 4386,4396

Re: [HACKERS] hardware donation

2013-07-10 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 07/10/2013 09:53 AM, Benedikt Grundmann wrote: >> Jane Street has a spare server we would like to donate to the postgres >> community. We originally planed to use it for one of our database clusters >> and it matches exactly what we use in

Re: [HACKERS] [Review] Add SPI_gettypmod() to return a field's typemod from a TupleDesc / audit of [E] TODO items

2013-07-12 Thread Mark Wong
On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 08:15:00PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> I mildly recommend we reject this patch as such, remove the TODO item, remove >> the XXX comments this patch removes, and plan not to add more trivial SPI >> wrappers. > > Seeing just

[HACKERS] crash from pfree and brin index

2014-09-30 Thread Mark Wong
at postgres.c:4010 #28 0x006349ad in BackendRun (port=0x1d211e0) at postmaster.c:4112 #29 BackendStartup (port=0x1d211e0) at postmaster.c:3787 #30 ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1566 #31 PostmasterMain (argc=, argv=) at postmaster.c:1219 #32 0x0045f98a in main (argc=3, argv=0x1d00aa0) a

Re: [HACKERS] [Review] Add SPI_gettypmod() to return a field's typemod from a TupleDesc

2013-02-09 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> [ review ] >> >> Chetan, this patch is waiting for an update from you. If you'd like >> this to get committed this CommitFest, we'l

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm breakage

2010-02-08 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Our Solaris *moth members seem to have stopped building. Have we lost them? > > They're not *all* dead, but it sure looks like Oracle scaled that lab > way back the moment they owned it.  I'm surprised any of them are still > alive :-( We still h

[HACKERS] new database test 5 v0.1.0

2010-04-04 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, I've just released the first version (v.0.1.0) of dbt5, a fair-use derivative of the TPC-E. This kit was initially developed by by Rilson Nascimento as a Google Summer of Code project in 2006. The kit can be downloaded here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/osdldbt/files/ For those fam

Re: [HACKERS] compile/install of git

2010-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> On 09/18/2010 10:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > Dave Page wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian  wrote: >> >>> FYI, I have compiled/installed git 1.7.3.rc2 on my BSD/OS 4.3.1 machine >>

Re: [HACKERS] compile/install of git

2010-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 09/20/2010 12:24 PM, Mark Wong wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bruce Momjian  wrote: >>> >>> Well, I can run tests for folks before they apply a patch and "red" the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL and HugePage

2010-10-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, daveg wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:28:25PM -0700, Greg Stark wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote: >>> > I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes >>> > have been fo

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL and HugePage

2010-10-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, daveg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> > >> > >> >shmget and friends are hugetlbpage  aware, so it seems it should 'just >> >work'. >> > >> >> Heh - provided you specify >> >> SHM_

[HACKERS] ibm system z in the buildfarm

2015-02-10 Thread Mark Wong
Hi everyone, I've seen in the archive a call for more architecture coverage so I just wanted to send a quick note that there is now Linux on System Z in the buildfarm now: http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=nudibranch&br=HEAD Regards, Mark --

Re: [HACKERS] ibm system z in the buildfarm

2015-02-11 Thread Mark Wong
On 02/11/2015 05:48 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:49:18PM -0800, Mark Wong wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've seen in the archive a call for more architecture coverage so I just >> wanted to send a quick note that there is now Linux on

[HACKERS] Fwd: PDXPUG Day at OSCON 2010

2010-05-25 Thread Mark Wong
It was recommended to me to forward this to -hackers. Regards, Mark -- Forwarded message -- From: Mark Wong Date: Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:57 AM Subject: PDXPUG Day at OSCON 2010 To: pgsql-annou...@postgresql.org Thanks to the generosity of O'Reilly, we will be having a ful

[HACKERS] fix use of posix_fadvise in xlog.c

2010-06-09 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, I wanted to propose a fix for to xlog.c regarding the use of posix_fadvise() for 9.1 (unless someone feels it's ok for 9.0). Currently posix_fadvise() is used right before a log file is closed so it's effectively not doing anything, when posix_fadvise is to be called. This patch moves the

Re: [HACKERS] fix use of posix_fadvise in xlog.c

2010-06-10 Thread Mark Wong
On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: On 10/06/10 06:47, Mark Wong wrote: I wanted to propose a fix for to xlog.c regarding the use of posix_fadvise() for 9.1 (unless someone feels it's ok for 9.0). Currently posix_fadvise() is used right before a log file is clo

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit psqlrc

2010-06-16 Thread Mark Wong
Hi David, At a pdxpug gathering, we took a look at your patch to psql for supporting multiple -f's and put together some feedback: REVIEW: Patch: support multiple -f options https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=286 ==Submission review== Is the patch in context diff format?

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit psqlrc

2010-06-23 Thread Mark Wong
On Jun 22, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 20:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, gabrielle wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera asked: How does it play with ON_ERROR_STOP/ROLLBACK? >>> >>> With ON_ERROR_STOP=

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit psqlrc

2010-06-23 Thread Mark Wong
On Jun 23, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Mark Wong wrote: > On Jun 22, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 20:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, gabrielle wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:50 -0400, Alvaro Herr

Re: parallelizing subplan execution (was: [HACKERS] explain and PARAM_EXEC)

2010-06-25 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, Sorry for jumping in over 4 months later... On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > wrote: >>> This is really a topic for another thread, but at 100,000 feet it >>> seems to me that the hardest question is - how will you

Re: parallelizing subplan execution (was: [HACKERS] explain and PARAM_EXEC)

2010-06-30 Thread Mark Wong
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong wrote: >> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/publications.html >> >> Some of these papers aren't the type of parallelism we're talking >> about here, b

Re: [HACKERS] multiple -f support

2010-07-13 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, I took a stab at changing this up a little bit. I pushed the logic that David introduced down into process_file(). In doing so I changed up the declaration of process_file() to accept an additional parameter specifying how many files are being passed to the function. Doing it this way a

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit psqlrc

2010-07-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 23:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> Since it has been over a month since this review was posted and no new >>> version of the patch has appeared, I think we should

[HACKERS] parallel quicksort

2010-08-08 Thread Mark Wong
Hi everyone, I've been playing around with a process based parallel quicksort (http://github.com/markwkm/quicksort) and I tried to shoehorn it into postgres because I wanted to see if I could sort more than integers. I've attached a patch that creates a new GUC to control the degree of parallelism

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I also saw that wombat is segfaulting in ecpg tests but not only with CVS HEAD but also trying to test 8.2. Any idea what's going on with this machine? I generated a stack trace for REL8_2_STABLE, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. Let me

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think you'll need to compile with optimisation turned off and then try > running the test under debugger control, putting a breakpoint in > ECPGget_variable() and then stepping through it. I wonder what

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Mark Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does this help? > (gdb) p var->ind_pointer > $8 = (void *) 0x0 Well, that seems to be the reason why it's failing to indirect through ind_pointer ... but why is

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/26/07, Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:38:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > My recommendation is to get rid of the APREF hack, deal only in > va_list not &va_list, and inline ECPGget_variable into the two > places it's used to avoid the question of passing va

Re: [HACKERS] Why so many out-of-disk-space failures on buildfarm machines?

2007-07-18 Thread Mark Wong
On 7/3/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: wombat long-standing configuration error (no Tk installed) My apologies for not responding earlier. I see 7.3 contrib problems for wombat but I don't see a config error for Tk with HEAD or any of the other 8.x releases. I have the --with

Re: [HACKERS] Why so many out-of-disk-space failures on buildfarm machines?

2007-07-23 Thread Mark Wong
On 7/18/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think we're ever going to fix things for the 7.3 error you're > getting - please take it out of your rotation. 7.3 isn't quite as dead > as Joshua suggested earlier, but it's certainly on life sup

Re: [HACKERS] Machine available for community use

2007-07-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 7/25/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Gavin M. Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm currently in the process of having Gentoo linux reinstalled on the > box since that is what I am most comfortable administering from a > security perspective. If this will be a blocker for developers

Re: [HACKERS] Machine available for community use

2007-07-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 7/25/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 08:50 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > On 7/25/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Gavin M. Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm currently in the process of hav

[HACKERS] top for postgresql (ptop?)

2007-09-25 Thread Mark Wong
Hi everyone, I was playing with converting unixtop (the version of top used in FreeBSD) to only show PostgreSQL processes pulled from the pg_stat_activity table. I have a version that kind of works here: http://pgfoundry.org/frs/download.php/1468/ptop-3.6.1-pre6.tar.gz I've tried it on FreeBSD

Re: [HACKERS] top for postgresql (ptop?)

2007-09-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 9/25/07, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I haven't yet looked at what you've done, but I'm an enthusiastic supporter > of this idea. We're looking to do something that will view running queries > and allow drill down into those executing at any given time, showing their

Re: [HACKERS] top for postgresql (ptop?)

2007-09-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 9/25/07, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Wong wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I was playing with converting unixtop (the version of top used in > > FreeBSD) to only show PostgreSQL processes pulled from the > > pg_stat_activit

Re: [HACKERS] top for postgresql (ptop?)

2007-09-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 9/25/07, Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > Very interesting. I'm looking for such tool. > > Unfortunately, I can't compile it on my Solaris right now, > but I hope it will be shipped with PostgreSQL distribution. I haven't tried it on Solaris but I'm not surprised. If I c

Re: [HACKERS] top for postgresql (ptop?)

2007-09-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 9/26/07, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Wong wrote: > > On 9/25/07, Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mark, > >> > >> Very interesting. I'm looking for such tool. > >> > >> Unfortunately,

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-02 Thread Mark Wong
oon is the daily DBT run against > CVS HEAD that Mark Wong was doing at OSDL. Maybe we don't need a > particularly enormous machine for that, but comparable runs day after > day are real nice for noting when patches had unexpected performance > impacts... I expect the processors i

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-05 Thread Mark Wong
On 11/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > Why don't you post a TODO list for TPC-E somewhere, so people can bite > small pieces off of the list. I'm sure there's lots of people can help > if we do it that way. This should be a good start: http://osdldbt.sourceforge.net/dbt5/t

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-06 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:15:02 + Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:33 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: > > On 11/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Why don't you post a TODO list for TPC-E somewhere, so p

Re: [HACKERS] 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

2008-02-07 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:47:22 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I know Luke has mentioned some issues in the past as well around CPU > > boundness with an upper limit of 300M/s (IIRC) but even that doesn't > > equate to what is going on he

Re: [HACKERS] MonetDB test says that PostgreSQL often has errors or missing results

2010-01-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> Actually, the report which MonetDB has published I believe is illegal. >> If they're not running it through the TPC, they can't claim it's a >> "TPCH" result. >> > > I just resisted getting into that but now you've set

[HACKERS] opportunity for time on large itanium system

2008-07-30 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, There is an opportunity to get remote access to a 16 CPU Itanium (or possibly bigger) system at HP. If anyone is interested Bob Gobeille at HP (cc'ed) will do what he can to get remote access. Maybe some scalability work or something? :) We don't have many details at the moment, but Bob

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-11-14 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A lot of people have suggested raising our default_statistics target, >> and it has been rejected because there's some O(n^2) behavior in the >> planner, and it makes ANALYZE sl

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-01 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A lot of people have suggested raising our default_statistics target, >> and it has been rejected because there's some O(n^2) behavior in the >> planner, and it makes ANALYZE sl

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-03 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mark Wong wrote: > >> So then I attempted to see if there might have been difference between the >> executing time of each individual query with the above parameters. The >>

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-08 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> ... where the "Power Test" seems to oscillate between degrees of good and bad >> behavior seemingly at random. > > Are any of the queries complicated enough to trigger GEQO planning? Is

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-18 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Wong" writes: >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Are any of the queries complicated enough to trigger GEQO planning? > >> Is there a debug option that we could use to see? > >

[HACKERS] community equipment

2009-05-04 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, It has been brought to our attention that many in the PostgreSQL community are still not aware that we have equipment which has been donated for community use (e.g. development and testing). As requested we have set up an additional web page on pgfoundy and a new mailing list to discuss u

[HACKERS] effects of posix_fadvise on WAL logs

2009-05-26 Thread Mark Wong
file is opened. Regards, Mark Wong pgsql-xlog-posix_fadvise-20090425.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-26 Thread Mark Wong
dropping yet. It'll be interesting to see if the combination of changing the table block size can further improve the performance. It will probably be interesting to try different filesystems and filesystem blocksizes too. Regards, Mark Wong -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-ha

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 19:51 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: >> It appears for this workload using a 16KB or 32KB gets more than 4% >> throughput improvement, but some of that could be noise. > > The baseline appears to have a

[HACKERS] survey of table blocksize changes

2009-05-31 Thread Mark Wong
this could be noise. But anything smaller than 4GB and larger than 8KB looks like a fairly significant performance drop for DBT2. I wonder if there's any coincidence that the blocksize of the ext2 filesystem is also 4KB. Regards, Mark Wong -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgs

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting default_statistics_target

2009-06-06 Thread Mark Wong
er a bit of tuning, not sure how much the out of the box experience changes on this system. Now if only I couldn't figure out why oprofile doesn't like this system... Regards. Mark Wong -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Yet another open-source benchmark

2003-03-03 Thread Mark Wong
d we're prepared to aid any effort. :) > Cheers, > > Neil > -- > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.po

Re: [HACKERS] OSDL DBT-2 for PostgreSQL

2003-08-01 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:05:18PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Mark, > > > I've just got our DBT-2 workload (TPC-C derivate) working with > > PostgreSQL using C stored functions and libpq. I'd love to get some > > feedback. > > I'm confused. Jenny Zhang just announced OSDL-DBT3 for Postgres; i

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-10-18 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I see this in the CVS commits for 8.2. Did we determine the proper number of lock partitions? Should it be based on the number of buffers or concurrent sessions allowed? No. NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS needs to be a compile-time constant for

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-10-18 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The number of transaction errors increased when I increased the NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS, which I think is the reason it failed to run when I set it to 16. Hmm, what sort of errors are we talking about? I wonder if you've ex

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-10-18 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, what sort of errors are we talking about? ERROR: too many LWLocks taken That really shouldn't happen ... are you sure you did a full recompile after changing NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS? Actually ... wait a m

[HACKERS] FYI - another open source tpc-c kit

2007-03-02 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, Just wanted to share some information I was pointed to in case no one has heard: The kit can be found here: http://www.infor.uva.es/~diego/tpcc-uva.html The SIGMOD paper is here: http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0612/p06-article-llanos.pdf Mark ---(en

Re: [HACKERS] FYI - another open source tpc-c kit

2007-03-02 Thread Mark Wong
On 3/2/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 3/2/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is also odbc-bench which I was thinking about automating. > > Yep, OpenLink's ODBC Bench is pretty good for both TPC-A and TPC-C. I haven't ported it yet

[HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Mark Wong
I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information retrieval oriented for non-commercial research use only but could potentially be an interesting data set to test with. Mark

Re: [HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Mark Wong
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:26:17AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information retrieval oriented for non-commercial research use only but could

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-11 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I see this in the CVS commits for 8.2. Did we determine the proper number of lock partitions? Should it be based on the number of buffers or concurrent sessions allowed? No. NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS needs to be a compile-time constant for

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: It would be nice to see some results from the OSDL tests with, say, 4, 8, and 16 lock partitions before we forget about the point though. Anybody know whether OSDL is in a position to run tests for us? Yeah, I can ru

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sorry for the delay but looks like there's some data coming in. It also looks like my kit is starting to be a little dated. My stored libpq calls are failing. I'm getting this message: ERROR: record type has not

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: This is a server-side failure --- could we see how order_status() is defined? What PG version are you testing exactly? I took pgsqsl snapshot from cvs on Sept 11. Due to the length of the file that order_status()

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: But perhaps something much easier, using subversion: mkdir /mnt/dbt2 # for pgdata svn co https://svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/osdldbt/trunk/dbt2 dbt2 cd dbt2 ./configure --with-postgresql= configure is not in the svn checkout. I g

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Oops! 'autoreconf --install' is what I run to generate all that stuff. Ah, better. I see at least part of the problem: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION stock_level (INTEGER, INTEGER, INTEGER) RETURNS INTEGER AS '/hom

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-14 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: With that change, I didn't see run_workload report any errors, but maybe I don't know where to look. The error is captured in dbt2/scripts/output/*/client/error.log, where * is the run directory. Hm .

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-19 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Curious, I'm still seeing the same behavior. Maybe I'll take another snapshot from CVS. Hm, maybe I need to try a bit harder here. Does the "not registered" error happen immediately/reliably for you, or do you n

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
Mark Wong wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Curious, I'm still seeing the same behavior. Maybe I'll take another snapshot from CVS. Hm, maybe I need to try a bit harder here. Does the "not registered" error happen immediately/reliably

Re: [HACKERS] Lock partitions

2006-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I did a gross test and my kit appears broken between the 8.0 and 8.1 releases. I'll try to narrow down the exact date. I've narrowed it down between cvs pulls from Dec 14, 2005 and Dec 15, 2005. Does the attached dif

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index status

2006-09-22 Thread Mark Wong
Jie Zhang wrote: Hi Heikki and all, I just sent the latest bitmap index patch to the list. I am not sure if there is any size limit for this mailing list. If you have received my previous email, please let me know. Hi Jie, I know I said I was going to get testing on this months ago but I've

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index status

2006-09-25 Thread Mark Wong
checked out the link you provided below. I am a little confused about the goal of these tests. Do you plan to test the overall performance of postgreSQL on handling TPC-H queries? Thanks, Jie On 9/22/06 3:45 PM, "Mark Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jie Zhang wrote: Hi Heikki and a

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index status

2006-09-28 Thread Mark Wong
Luke Lonergan wrote: Mark, On 9/25/06 11:32 AM, "Mark Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, basically gather as many stats as I can to accurately profile the overall system performance. I thought it would be appropriate to use a TPC-H based workload as one measuring stick t

[HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-05 Thread Mark Wong
Hi everyone, After over a year of problems (old site http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/) I have resumed producing daily results of dbt-2 against PostgreSQL CVS code with results here: http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt2.html The only really new thing is better described stats on the i

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-08 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> After over a year of problems (old site >> http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/) I have resumed producing >> daily results of dbt-2 against PostgreSQL CVS code with results here: >> http:/

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-08 Thread Mark Wong
Michael Paesold wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> After over a year of problems (old site >>>> http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/) I have resumed producing >>>> daily results

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-09 Thread Mark Wong
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 05:26:11PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I made another couple of gross mistakes of forgetting to compile PostgreSQL with --enable-thread-safe and enabling the user space irq balancing program in Linux. I've restarted the histories with 600 and W

[HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt3 against postgresql

2006-10-09 Thread Mark Wong
Hi everyone, I have now resumed producing daily results of dbt-3 against PostgreSQL CVS code at the 10 GB scale factor with results here: http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt3.html I'm currently only running the load the power test because of the amount of time it takes to run through the power test.

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-09 Thread Mark Wong
Luke Lonergan wrote: +1 Mark, can you quantify the impact of not running with IRQ balancing enabled? Yeah, I'll try to have that done within a couple of days. Mark ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map set

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-10 Thread Mark Wong
Luke Lonergan wrote: +1 Mark, can you quantify the impact of not running with IRQ balancing enabled? Whoops, look like performance was due more to enabling the --enable-thread-safe flag. IRQ balancing on : 7086.75 http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/158/ IRQ balancing o

Re: [HACKERS] continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql

2006-10-10 Thread Mark Wong
m the CPU with local memory, resulting in the NUMA cache misses. The answer for us is to bind each process to a CPU. Might that help in running DBT-2? - Luke On 10/10/06 9:40 AM, "Mark Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luke Lonergan wrote: +1 Mark, can you quantify the impact of no

Re: [HACKERS] WAL: O_DIRECT and multipage-writer

2005-03-22 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:06:23PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > Environment: > OS : Linux kernel 2.6.9 > CPU: Pentium 4 3GHz > disk : ATA 5400rpm (Data and WAL are placed on same partition.) > memory : 1GB > config : shared_buffers=1, wal_buffers=256, >XLOG_S

Re: [HACKERS] WAL: O_DIRECT and multipage-writer

2005-03-23 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:55:46PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > Hi, Mark. > > Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In light of this thread, have you compared the performance on > > Linux-2.4? > > No, but I'm just testing my patch on Linux

[HACKERS] PLM pulling from CVS nightly for testing in STP

2005-04-13 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, Just wanted everyone to know what we're pulling CVS HEAD nightly so it can be tested in STP now. Let me know if you have any questions. Tests are not automatically run yet, but I hope to remedy that shortly. For those not familiar with STP and PLM, here are a couple of links: STP

Re: [HACKERS] PLM pulling from CVS nightly for testing in STP

2005-04-13 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Mark, > > > Just wanted everyone to know what we're pulling CVS HEAD nightly so it > > can be tested in STP now. Let me know if you have any questions. > > Way cool.How do I find the PLM number? How are you nameing these? The

Re: [HACKERS] PLM pulling from CVS nightly for testing in STP

2005-04-19 Thread Mark Wong
I have dbt-2 tests automatically running against each pull from CVS and have started to automatically compile results here: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/ I did start with a bit of a minimalistic approach, so I'm open for any comments, feedback, etc. Mark --

[HACKERS] Daily DBT-3 (DSS) Results on CVS head

2005-06-07 Thread Mark Wong
FYI, I have results being generated daily against CVS, in addition to dbt2: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/ I've also added a link to instructions on how to submit patches to test against PostgreSQL on that page, if anyone's interested. Thanks, Mark ---

Re: [HACKERS] Daily DBT-3 (DSS) Results on CVS head

2005-06-10 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:17:58 +0900 Junji TERAMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Mark, > > Mark Wong wrote: > > http://developer.osdl.org/markw/postgrescvs/ > > This site includes "Profile Report". It's very interesting and useful! > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes

2005-07-06 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:21:56 -0700 Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, > > > Josh, is this something that could be done in the performance lab? > > That's the idea. Sadly, OSDL's hardware has been having critical failures > of > late (I'm still trying to get test results on the checkpointing thing) a

[HACKERS] dbt2 & opteron performance

2005-07-12 Thread Mark Wong
I'm starting to get results with dbt2 on a 4-way opteron system and wanted to share what I've got so far since people have told me in the past that this architecture is more interesting than the itanium2 that I've been using. This 4-way has 8GB of memory and four Adaptec 2200s controllers attached

Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

2005-07-25 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:11:36 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, I'd like to look at 302906, but its [Details] link is broken. Ugh, I tried digging onto the internal systems and it looks like they were destroyed (or not saved) somehow. It'll have to be rerun. Sorry... Mark --

Re: [HACKERS] wal_buffer tests in

2005-07-27 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:30:01 -0700 Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the > wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially > resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing. > What's i

Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance

2005-07-27 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:32:34PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Mark, > > > I'm starting to get results with dbt2 on a 4-way opteron system and > > wanted to share what I've got so far since people have told me in the > > past that this architecture is more interesting than the itanium2 that > > I'

Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance

2005-07-28 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:19:34 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:14:41PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:31:39PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > > > After seeing the discussion about how bad the disk

Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance

2005-07-28 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:17:25 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:32:34PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > This 4-way has 8GB of memory and four Adaptec 2200s controllers attached > > > to 80 spindles (eight 10-disk arrays). For those familiar with the > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance

2005-07-28 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:48:09 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:15:31PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:17:25 -0500 > > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > &g

  1   2   >