[HACKERS] pgbash-7.3 released

2003-02-11 Thread SAKAIDA Masaaki
I'm pleased to announce the release of pgbash-7.3. http://www.psn.co.jp/PostgreSQL/pgbash/index-e.html ChangeLog: 1. Fix a bug of CVS form in the (pgbash original)copy command. 2. Update 'pgbashrc' for PostgreSQL-7.3. 3. Pgbash version number was changed into the same number as PostgreSQL.

Re: [HACKERS] PGP signing releases

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
Well said. I'm glad someone else is willing to take a stab at addressing these issues, since I've been down with the flu. Thanks Greg. As both Gregs have pointed out, hashes and checksums alone should only be used as an integrity check. It is not a viable security mechanism. A hash does not

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance *sigh* Chris ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Mario Weilguni
Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested?

Re: [HACKERS] log_duration

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Looking at the log_duration postgresql.conf option. How about adding an option log_duration_min which is a value in milliseconds that is the minimum time a query must run for before being logged. Fine

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance *sigh*

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni wrote: Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance And why is the

[HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Stark
So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY aggregates (Tom) I'm finding this would benefit a lot of my queries. Most of the time seems to be going into sorts for group by clauses. I don't know how long it would take to build a hash of course, but I suspect it would

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:48:11 -0500, Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY aggregates (Tom) I'm finding this would benefit a lot of my queries. Most of the time seems to be going into sorts for group by clauses. I

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Stark
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is already in 7.4. You could try it out by building from CVS. From the HISTORY file: System can use either hash- or sort-based strategy for grouped aggregation Ooh, doing that now. Thanks. -- greg ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY aggregates (Tom) It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try. The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that have = operators but no useful operator.

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
I've tested all the win32 versions of postgres I can get my hands on (cygwin and not), and my general feeling is that they have problems with insert performance with fsync() turned on, probably the fault of the os. Select performance is not so much affected. This is easily solved with

Re: [HACKERS] PGP signing releases

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote: On Thu, 5 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote: Who will actually hold the key? Where will it be physically kept? Good question but can usually be addressed. It can be addressed, but how well? This is another big issue that I

Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too conservative, It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we should adjust the defaults. The

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:41:53 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY aggregates (Tom) It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try. The neat thing is that hash aggregates

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that have = operators but no useful operator. Hm. Right now I think that would barf on you, because

Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Patrick Welche
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:20:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: ... We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). ... Assuming 1 page = 4k, and number of pages

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote: Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too conservative, It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread mlw
Tom Lane wrote: "Merlin Moncure" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too conservative, It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Justin Clift
Tom Lane wrote: snip What I would really like to do is set the default shared_buffers to 1000. That would be 8 meg worth of shared buffer space. Coupled with more-realistic settings for FSM size, we'd probably be talking a shared memory request approaching 16 meg. This is not enough RAM to

Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Steve Crawford
A quick-'n'-dirty first step would be more comments in postgresql.conf. Most of the lines are commented out which would imply use the default but the default is not shown. (I realize this has the difficulty of defaults that change depending upon how PostgreSQL was configured/compiled but

Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally I'd be a bunch happier if we set the buffers so high that we definitely have decent performance, and the people that want to run PostgreSQL are forced to make the choice of either: 1) Adjust their system settings to allow PostgreSQL to run

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread mlw
Greg Copeland wrote: I'd personally rather have people stumble trying to get PostgreSQL running, up front, rather than allowing the lowest common denominator more easily run PostgreSQL only to be disappointed with it and move on. After it's all said and done, I would rather someone simply

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:10, Steve Crawford wrote: A quick-'n'-dirty first step would be more comments in postgresql.conf. Most This will not solve the issue with the large number of users who have no interest in looking at the config file -- but are interested in publishing their results. --

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Kaare Rasmussen
What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which to copy into the database directory? We could have a high read Exactly my first thought when reading the proposal for a setting suited for performance tests. performance profile, and a transaction database

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:23, mlw wrote: Greg Copeland wrote: I'd personally rather have people stumble trying to get PostgreSQL running, up front, rather than allowing the lowest common denominator more easily run PostgreSQL only to be disappointed with it and move on. After it's

Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Jon Griffin
FYI, my stock linux 2.4.19 gentoo kernel has: kernel.shmall = 2097152 kernel.shmmax = 33554432 sysctl -a So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I am missing something. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This attitude sucks. If you want a product to be used, you must put the effort into making it usable. [snip] AFAICT, you are flaming Greg for recommending the exact same thing you are recommending. Please calm down and read again.

Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Jon Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I am missing something. Yeah, AFAIK all recent Linuxen are well above the range of parameters that I was suggesting (and even if they weren't, Linux is particularly easy to change the

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:08, Justin Clift wrote: b) Said benchmarking person knows very little about PostgreSQL, so they install the RPM's, packages, or whatever, and it works. Then they run whatever benchmark they've downloaded, or designed, or whatever Out of curiosity, how feasible is

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread mlw
Apology After Mark calms down and, in fact, sees that Greg was saying the right thing after all, chagrin is the only word. I'm sorry. Greg Copeland wrote: On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:23, mlw wrote: Greg Copeland wrote: I'd personally rather have people stumble

[HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread mlw
The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I submitted in 7.1 days. One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory, the administrator should specify a database configuration file.

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of running out of file descriptors. Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PHP or another language that runs as an apache module, it is

[HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX, and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native Windows port --- any issues there? From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use the VirtualAlloc() memory allocation functions and set up a

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:44, mlw wrote: The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I submitted in 7.1 days. One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory, the administrator

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely to cause too many problems? That would likely run into number-of-semaphores limitations (SEMMNI, SEMMNS). We do not seem to have as good documentation about changing that as we

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread mlw
Robert Treat wrote: I'm going to be lazy and ask if you can post what the better solution that was coming was (or a link to the thread). While I'll grant you that the it's coming argument is pretty weak after two releases, that fact that it may have been a better solution could still hold up.

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:55, Tom Lane wrote: scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely to cause too many problems? That would likely run into number-of-semaphores limitations (SEMMNI, SEMMNS). We do not seem to

Re: [HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:49, Merlin Moncure wrote: Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX, and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native Windows port --- any issues there? From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use the

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Jeff Hoffmann
Tom Lane wrote: I think that what this discussion is really leading up to is that we are going to decide to apply the same principle to performance. The out-of-the-box settings ought to give reasonable performance, and if your system can't handle it, you should have to take explicit action to

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
On 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote: On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:55, Tom Lane wrote: scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is setting the max connections to something like 200 reasonable, or likely to cause too many problems? That would likely run into number-of-semaphores

FW: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
True, but even so, 32 max connections is a bit light. I have more pgsql databases than that on my box now. My point in my previous answer to Tom was that you HAVE to shut down postgresql to change this. It doesn't allocate tons of semaphores on startup, [snip] is this correct? I recall

Re: [HACKERS] new procedural language - PL/R

2003-02-11 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) Knowing the trend to move stuff *out* of the PostgreSQL source tarball, and assuming plr is released under GPL, is there any chance that it would be accepted into src/pl or contrib, or should I start a gborg project (I'd prefer if it

Re: [HACKERS] Projection while performing joins.

2003-02-11 Thread Anagh Lal
Hi, Two parts to the mail 1) We already do --- the scan nodes project out only the needed columns. ok..thats great. I tried looking for what you are saying in the source code... [before and after doing a cvs update].. but I am still confused by the following: In /backend/executor/nodeMergeJoin.c

[HACKERS] win32 port

2003-02-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
Has a final decision been made if the win32 port is going to be threaded or not? Merlin

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Lamar Owen
On Tuesday 11 February 2003 13:03, Robert Treat wrote: On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:08, Justin Clift wrote: b) Said benchmarking person knows very little about PostgreSQL, so they install the RPM's, packages, or whatever, and it works. Then they run whatever benchmark they've downloaded, or

[HACKERS] Report on Japan, Belgium trip

2003-02-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have just returned from a two-week speaking trip to Japan and Belgium. I spoke at three locations in Tokyo, and at FOSDEM in Brussels. I have updated my home page to list all the speeches, including one on replication and a new marketing one:

[HACKERS] Maximum Size for Large Object / TOASTed Object

2003-02-11 Thread Paul Ramsey
Hi All, What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL? What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL? The PostgreSQL Limitations page says the maximum size of a field is 1 Gb, but does a large object constitute a field? :) Thanks, Paul -- __ / |

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum Size for Large Object / TOASTed Object

2003-02-11 Thread Nigel J. Andrews
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Paul Ramsey wrote: Hi All, What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL? What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL? The PostgreSQL Limitations page says the maximum size of a field is 1 Gb, but does a large object constitute a

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Rick Gigger
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote: Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too conservative, It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking

Re: [HACKERS] PGP signing release

2003-02-11 Thread Curt Sampson
On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote: [Re: everybody sharing a single key] This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone that is signing a key must take reasonable measures to ensure the protection of their key.

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote: Here's the comment I was referring to: /* * InitProcGlobal - * initializes the global process table. We put it here so that * the postmaster can do this initialization. * * We also create all the per-process semaphores we

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Curt Sampson
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote: It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we should adjust the defaults. Some of these issues could be made to Just Go Away with some code changes. For example, using mmap rather than SysV shared memory would automatically optimize

Re: [HACKERS] PGP signing release

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:27, Curt Sampson wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote: [Re: everybody sharing a single key] This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone that is signing a key must take

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Rick Gigger wrote: The type of person who can't configure it or doesnt' think to try is probably not doing a project that requires any serious performance. As long as you are running it on decent hardware postgres will run fantastic for anything but a very heavy load. I

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration

2003-02-11 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of running out of file descriptors. Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PHP or another language that runs as an apache module,

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Curt Sampson wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote: It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we should adjust the defaults. Some of these issues could be made to Just Go Away with some code changes. For example, using mmap rather than

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 17:42:06 -0700, scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The poor performance of Postgresql in it's current default configuration HAS cost us users, trust me, I know a few we've almost lost where I work that I converted after some quick tweaking of their database.

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration

2003-02-11 Thread scott.marlowe
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: My other pet peeve is the default max connections setting. This should be higher if possible, but of course, there's always the possibility of running out of file descriptors. Apache has a default max children of 150, and if using PHP or

[HACKERS] Contract Programmer Advice.

2003-02-11 Thread Lamar Owen
Being that this group of hackers is one I trust, and that this is a pretty common scenario for contract programming, I thought I'd ask this group a question. I hope you don't mind. I did some contract programming work for a to-be-nameless company a while back, and I'm having difficulty

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration

2003-02-11 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
It likely. First you will ran out kernel file descriptors. This could be solved by increasing the kernel table or lowering max_files_per_process, though. Second the total throughput will rapidly descrease if you don't have enough RAM and many CPUs. PostgreSQL can not handle many

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Why don't we include a postgresql.conf.recommended along with our postgresql.conf.sample. That shouldn't be too hard. We can just jack up the shared buffers and wal buffers and everything - it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, but it will at least give people an idea of what needs to be

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
After it's all said and done, I would rather someone simply say, it's beyond my skill set, and attempt to get help or walk away. That seems better than them being able to run it and say, it's a dog, spreading word-of-mouth as such after they left PostgreSQL behind. Worse yet, those that do

Re: [HACKERS] Contract Programmer Advice.

2003-02-11 Thread Jeroen T. Vermeulen
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:56:56PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: This company doesn't dispute any of my invoices and says they are going to pay me. But they have not yet done so. This company is still in business, and I wouldn't know about your country, whichever that may be, but in the

Re: [HACKERS] Contract Programmer Advice.

2003-02-11 Thread Dave Smith
In Canada we have small claims court. up to 10,1000$ and it only costs you 50$ to file a claim. They have to file a defense or settle within 30 days. Usally if they owe you the money it forces them to do something, either settle or *really* drag it out, but it gets the process moving.

[HACKERS] Heads up: Telegraph research project at UC Berkeley

2003-02-11 Thread Joe Hellerstein
Hi all: I wanted to give the PostgreSQL community a heads up on ongoing database research here at UC Berkeley, which may be of interest since it uses PGSQL. The last few years we've been building a system called Telegraph, which has a number of research thrusts: a) aggressively adaptive

Re: [HACKERS] Berkeley and CMU classes adopt/extend PostgreSQL

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Hellerstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am teaching the undergrad DB course at UC Berkeley, something I do with some frequency. We have the usual 180 students we get every semester (yep: 180!), but this year we've instituted 2 changes: 1) We changed the course projects to make the

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... The original choice of 32 was set because the original choice of 64 shared memory blocks as the most we could hope for on common OS installs. Now that we're looking at cranking that up to 1000, shouldn't max connections get a look too? Actually

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread Curt Sampson
I, personally, also think it makes more sense to pass to the postmaster a configuration file that contains all the rest of the information about the database system, including the disk locations of the various data directories and whatnot. cjs -- Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] +81 90 7737

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Hi Everyone, I have just completed a basic set of benchmarking on our new database server. I wanted to figure out a good value for shared_buffers before we go live. We are a busy ecommerce-style website and so we probably get 10 or 20 to 1 read transactions vs. write transactions. We also

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Dann Corbit
-Original Message- From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:54 PM To: Hackers; Advocacy Subject: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results Hi Everyone, I have just completed a basic set of benchmarking on our new database server.

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
I am now going to leave it on 5000 and play with wal_buffers. Is there anything else people are interested in me trying? Keenly interested. Who wouldn't want to know how to optimize it? That's the hardest guideline to find. Oops - what that sentence was supposed to say is Is there anyone

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Gavin Sherry
Hi Chris, On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Machine: 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, 1 Ghz Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with. What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there would be no negative to having infinite

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Machine: 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, 1 Ghz Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with. Perhaps, but I'm benchmarking for that machine, not for any other. The results have to include the 256MB spec. Also, the peak was 25MB of SHM, which still leave 231MB for

Re: [HACKERS] Projection while performing joins.

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Anagh Lal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... I am still confused by the following: In /backend/executor/nodeMergeJoin.c in ExecMergeJoin() In the state (the switch case) EXEC_MJ_JOINTUPLES we still do ExecProject(), what does this do? Well, sure. A join node *must* do a projection, no? It

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Shridhar Daithankar[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni wrote: Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance And why is the

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Shridhar Daithankar[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 10:56 pm, you wrote: Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which to copy into the database directory? We could have a high read performance profile, and a transaction database profile, and a

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum Size for Large Object / TOASTed Object

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the maximum size a large object can be in PostgreSQL? What is the maximum size a TOASTed object can be in PostgreSQL? TOASTed fields max out at 1Gb. Large objects max out at either 2 or 4 Gb ... I'm not sure whether we consistently use signed or

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread ow
There's The Open Source Database Benchmark, http://osdb.sourceforge.net/. Anyone tried to use it? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Curt Sampson
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote: Another way of looking at it is memory mapped files. This probably most closely resembles unix shared memory and is the de facto standard way for interprocess memory block sharing. Sadly, performance will suffer because you have to rely on the

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread Kevin Brown
mlw wrote: AFAIK it wasn't actually done. It was more of a, we should do something different argument. At one point it was talked about rewriting the configuration system to allow include and other things. That seems like extreme overkill. The PostgreSQL configuration mechanism doesn't seem

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Dann Corbit
-Original Message- From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:32 PM To: Shridhar Daithankar[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks There's The Open Source Database

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Dann Corbit
A financial database benchmark: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/shasha/fintime.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Dann Corbit
This is how to get the FIPS benchmark. It measures CONFORMANCE rather than performance: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/sql_form.htm ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Dann Corbit
The benchmark handbook: http://www.benchmarkresources.com/handbook/contents.asp ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Hash grouping, aggregates

2003-02-11 Thread Hannu Krosing
Tom Lane kirjutas T, 11.02.2003 kell 18:39: Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that have = operators but no useful operator. Hm.

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I assume $PGDATA was around long before GUC? Yes, it was. But I have not yet seen an argument here that justifies why $SOMECONFIGDIRECTORY/postgresql.conf is better than $PGDATA/postgresql.conf. The latter keeps all the related files together. The former

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

2003-02-11 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Gavin Sherry wrote: Hi Chris, On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Machine: 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, 1 Ghz Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with. What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there would be no

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, Justin, What I would really like to do is set the default shared_buffers to 1000. That would be 8 meg worth of shared buffer space. Coupled with more-realistic settings for FSM size, we'd probably be talking a shared memory request approaching 16 meg. This is not enough RAM to

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which to copy into the database directory? We could have a high read performance profile, and a transaction database profile, and a workstation profile, and a low impact profile.

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Justin Clift
Josh Berkus wrote: Tom, Justin, snip What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose which to copy into the database directory? We could have a high read performance profile, and a transaction database profile, and a workstation profile, and a low impact profile.

Re: [HACKERS] Status report: regex replacement

2003-02-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tatsuo Ishii writes: UTF-8 seems to be the most popular, but even XML standard requires all compliant implementations to deal with at least both UTF-8 and UTF-16. I don't think PostgreSQL is going to natively support UTF-16. At FOSDEM it was claimed that Windows natively uses UCS-2, and

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Justin Clift
Tom Lane wrote: snip Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details. A lower-tech way to accomplish the same result is to document these

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, Justin, Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details. Sure. Mostly-Read database, few users, good hardware, complex

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of parameters for these different scenarios? This could be a good idea in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details. Without too much hacking

Re: [HACKERS] 7.2 - 7.3 incompatibility

2003-02-11 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 19:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: I found an example of a casting problem in our source code now that we're running 7.3: SELECT CURRENT_DATE - EXTRACT(DOW FROM CURRENT_DATE); A mathematically sound way to write this would be:

Re: [HACKERS] pgbash-7.3 released

2003-02-11 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:46, SAKAIDA Masaaki wrote: I'm pleased to announce the release of pgbash-7.3. http://www.psn.co.jp/PostgreSQL/pgbash/index-e.html How do the non-PostgreSQL features of pgbash relate to standard bash? Do you also keep up to date with new releases of bash? or is there no

Re: [HACKERS] pgbash-7.3 released

2003-02-11 Thread SAKAIDA Masaaki
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:46, SAKAIDA Masaaki wrote: I'm pleased to announce the release of pgbash-7.3. http://www.psn.co.jp/PostgreSQL/pgbash/index-e.html How do the non-PostgreSQL features of pgbash relate to standard bash? Please see:

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:01, Tom Lane wrote: Jon Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I am missing something. Yeah, AFAIK all recent Linuxen are well above the range of parameters that I was suggesting (and even if they

  1   2   >