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 System Z in the buildfarm now: http

[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=nudibranchbr=HEAD Regards, Mark -- Mark Wong

[HACKERS] crash from pfree and brin index

2014-09-30 Thread Mark Wong
PostmasterMain (argc=optimized out, argv=optimized out) at postmaster.c:1219 #32 0x0045f98a in main (argc=3, argv=0x1d00aa0) at main.c:219 Regards, Mark -- Mark Wong http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

2014-04-23 Thread Mark Wong
On Apr 22, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 04/22/2014 06:43 PM, Mark Wong wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com mailto:j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 04/22/2014 08:26 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

2014-04-22 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.comwrote: On 04/22/2014 08:26 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm going away tomorrow for a few days RR. when I'm back next week I will set up a demo client running this module. If you can have a machine prepped for this

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 n...@leadboat.com 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.

Re: [HACKERS] hardware donation

2013-07-10 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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

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 jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] Hardware donation

2013-06-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net 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 spectacular

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 robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote: [ review ] Chetan, this patch is waiting for an update from you. If

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL and HugePage

2010-10-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net 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 gsst...@mit.edu wrote: I don't think it's a big cost

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL and HugePage

2010-10-21 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net 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_HUGETLB

Re: [HACKERS] compile/install of git

2010-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 Momjianbr...@momjian.us  wrote: FYI, I have compiled/installed git 1.7.3.rc2 on my BSD/OS

Re: [HACKERS] compile/install of git

2010-09-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 09/20/2010 12:24 PM, Mark Wong wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us  wrote: Well, I can run tests for folks before they apply a patch and red the build farm.  I can also research

[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

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit psqlrc

2010-07-20 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com 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

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

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 robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com 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, but the ones

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 robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote: This is really a topic for another thread, but at 100,000 feet it seems to me that the

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 gor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera asked: How does it play with ON_ERROR_STOP/ROLLBACK? With

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 gor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera asked: How does it play

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] fix use of posix_fadvise in xlog.c

2010-06-10 Thread Mark Wong
On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com 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

[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

[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 mark...@gmail.com 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

[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

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm breakage

2010-02-08 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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

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 g...@2ndquadrant.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting default_statistics_target

2009-06-06 Thread Mark Wong
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

[HACKERS] survey of table blocksize changes

2009-05-31 Thread Mark Wong
of 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 (pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com 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

[HACKERS] effects of posix_fadvise on WAL logs

2009-05-26 Thread Mark Wong
. 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-hackers

[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

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-18 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Are any of the queries complicated enough to trigger GEQO planning? Is there a debug option that we could use to see

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 there a

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 queries that don't seem to be effected

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 slower, but

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 slower, but

[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

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 here as we are

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 people can bite small pieces off of the list. I'm sure

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:

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-02 Thread Mark Wong
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:20:27 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question is -hackers, is who wants first bite and what do they want :) Something I'd like to have back real soon is the daily DBT run against CVS HEAD that Mark Wong

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 plans

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_activity table. I have a version that kind of works here

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 can get

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, I can't compile it on my Solaris right now, but I hope it will be shipped with PostgreSQL

[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] 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 who

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 having Gentoo linux reinstalled on the box since that is what I am

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 support.

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

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

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 value

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 it only failing on your machine and not everyone

[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

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 but 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 exposed a bug

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 moment

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

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

2006-10-10 Thread Mark Wong
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 not running with IRQ balancing enabled

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 What's

[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

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://dbt.osdl.org/dbt2.html This is good

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 of dbt-2 against PostgreSQL CVS code with results here: http://dbt.osdl.org

[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

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 to use for bitmap

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 all, I just sent

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] 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 for you, or do you need to run

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 diff appear

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 need to run the test awhile

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 run some

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 been registered

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=pgsql_dir configure is not in the svn checkout. I

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 '/home/tgl/dbt2/storedproc

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 ... here's what I see

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

[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] XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

2006-05-11 Thread Mark Wong
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:55 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the performance we might see for normal small xlog writes. I'd try XLOG_BLCKSZ

Re: [HACKERS] XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

2006-05-10 Thread Mark Wong
Simon Riggs wrote: Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the performance we might see for normal small xlog writes. I'd try XLOG_BLCKSZ = 4096 and 8192 to start with. Thanks. Ok, got data for XLOG_BLCKXZ at

Re: [HACKERS] XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

2006-05-08 Thread Mark Wong
On Mon, 08 May 2006 19:08:59 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:00 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:52:38 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I would have gotten this out

Re: [HACKERS] XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

2006-05-05 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:52:38 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our infrastructure. Here's a link to a table of data I've started putting together regarding

[HACKERS] XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

2006-04-30 Thread Mark Wong
I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our infrastructure. Here's a link to a table of data I've started putting together regarding XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers on a 4-way Opteron system: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/pgsql/xlog_blcksz.html There are a couple of

Re: [HACKERS] Further reduction of bufmgr lock contention

2006-04-24 Thread Mark Wong
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box. Keep in mind that Gavin's 8-way turns back into a pumpkin on Monday :-( I

Re: [HACKERS] Summer of Code

2006-04-18 Thread Mark Wong
Josh Berkus wrote: Jonah, Where do we stand on this? Google sent me the docs on this year's SoC literally 2 hours ago. I need to read through them and start trying to connect mentors and students and projects. Do you think a proposal to work on a TPC-App (Java) and TPC-E (next

Re: [HACKERS] Google SoC--Idea Request

2006-04-18 Thread Mark Wong
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: All ideas welcome! I know it's not directly PostgreSQL related, but I'd love to see the dbt* code improved. Items on my wish-list: - make it easy to run the test framework and clients on a seperate machine

Re: [HACKERS] Google SoC--Idea Request

2006-04-18 Thread Mark Wong
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 4/18/06, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:27:40AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: All ideas welcome! I know it's not directly PostgreSQL related, but I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines

2006-03-22 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:54:12 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 16:17 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: If I had enough time there are all sorts of things like this I'd love to set up. A fetchable url that says try these experimental CVS branches or something

[HACKERS] Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging

2006-03-16 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, I've been wondering if there might be anything to gain by having a separate block size for logging and data. I thought I might try defining DATA_BLCKSZ and LOG_BLCKSZ and see what kind of trouble I get myself into. I wasn't able to find any previous discussion but pehaps 'separate

Re: [HACKERS] Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging

2006-03-16 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:37:07 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:21 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: I've been wondering if there might be anything to gain by having a separate block size for logging and data. I thought I might try defining DATA_BLCKSZ

Re: [HACKERS] Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging

2006-03-16 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:51:54 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 12:22 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: I was hoping that in the case where 2 or more data blocks are written to the log that they could written once within a single larger log block. The log block size

Re: [HACKERS] Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

2005-11-04 Thread Mark Wong
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:29:09 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 08:03 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:32:32 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Concerned about the awful checkpointing. Can you bump wal_buffers to 8192 just to make

Re: [HACKERS] Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

2005-11-03 Thread Mark Wong
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:32:32 + Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:10 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:03:47 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 14:07 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: This isn't exactly elegant

  1   2   >