Yes!
Probably very much so. There is good evidence that using multiple CPU's and
GPU's will
speed sorting and many other database operations too.
See
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/ngm/15-823/project/Final.pdf
The question become how practical is it? There are numerous
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to
3.1 and send PGRES_COPY_OUT if the client requests version 3.0. That's
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I think the best choice is to only accept qualified parameter names in
SQL functions (function_name.parameter_name). If a referenced table
share the function's name,
Hello,
During translating the docs I found the following sentence
in the tutorial section about createdb:
Database names must have an alphabetic first character
and are limited to 63 characters
I wondered - really characters? shouldn't it be bytes?
I just tested - creating a database by using
On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use
it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is
much less than with what Tom
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hm ... the core languages would now prefer CREATE EXTENSION, but it's
not clear how fast non-core PLs will follow suit.
Perhaps Use CREATE EXTENSION or CREATE LANGUAGE to load ... ?
Dear me. If we don't know what's right, how
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is it? Sync rep requires fsync on the standby. If you then explicitly
turn off fsync on the standby then it has a performance impact, as
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 3/26/2011 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jan Wieckjanwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
My current idea for a fix is to modify lazy_truncate_heap(). It does
acquire
and release the exclusive lock,
On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
That was what I meant. Go in steps of 16-64MB backwards and scan from there
to the current end in forward direction to find a nondeletable block. In
between these steps, release and reacquire the exclusive lock so that client
Hello
Is there some simple possibility to check a rights from stored procedure?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hi,
I am currently a student of IIT Bombay. I am doing a project on Benchmark
design. For that I need to measure the performance of various queries in
databases.
I want to know how can we measure the execution time of a query in Postgres
(Explain analyze will not do). Also is there any tools
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, maybe, but it's not like it's subtle or hard to
On 03/27/2011 09:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo
Subham,
I would start with reviewing Prof Mike Stonebrakers and Dr Paula
Hawthorns paper http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=582095.582097
you can also look at Perftrack
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.7063rep=rep1type=pdf
regards
3dmashUp
On
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I just noticed that if you execute the same DO command over and over
within a session, it gets slower and slower. And if you keep it up
you'll notice the backend's RAM consumption
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM, SUBHAM ROY subham@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am currently a student of IIT Bombay. I am doing a project on Benchmark
design. For that I need to measure the performance of various queries in
databases.
I want to know how can we measure the execution time of a
2011/3/27 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 03/27/2011 09:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
Actually, I want to run some set of queries in postgres on a HUGE data set.
I have to compute the actual execution time for each of those queries. So
how can I do that in Postgres ?
Suppose in Oracle following thing can be done :
*
set timing on;
select stuff from mytab;
Elapsed: 00:00:02.82
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
I'm not surprised by that at all. Some of our replication involves
Gb or faster connections on the same LAN segment (sometimes on the
same
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 06:52:03PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Syntax for named parameters should be consistent with prepared
statement. Is there any comments in standard?
Well, there's section 4.24 which says:
In SQL-statements that are executed dynamically, the parameters are
called dynamic
In these (Postgres) mailing lists, top-posting is not preferred. See my
response below.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, SUBHAM ROY subham@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Gurjeet Singh
singh.gurj...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM, SUBHAM ROY
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
That was what I meant. Go in steps of 16-64MB backwards and scan from there
to the current end in forward direction to find a nondeletable block. In
2011/3/27 Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 06:52:03PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Syntax for named parameters should be consistent with prepared
statement. Is there any comments in standard?
Well, there's section 4.24 which says:
In SQL-statements that are
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
I'm not surprised by that at all. Some of our replication
You could use this in psql. Don't know how precise is it, but is enought for
initial testing.
postgres=# \timing
Timing is on.
postgres=# create index dx on diplomka using gist(data);
CREATE INDEX
Time: 236752.569 ms
Původní zpráva
Od: SUBHAM ROY
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:36:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
** Selecting a field from a record-returning function's output.
Currently, we'll use the field's declared collation; except that
if the field has default collation, we'll replace that
I just dusted off this code and brought it back to current again.
Basically a lot of reformatting the new performance farm parts to
minimize their diff. Once that was done, all of the other buildfarm
client updates since then applied cleanly.
The result is now sitting as a fork of Andrew's
On 3/27/2011 1:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
So we should truncate in 16MB chunks also.
On a second though, fiddling with the scan direction is probably too
much of a change for back releases anyway. That 8.3/8.4 can get into a
situation, where autovacuum causes a 12 minute freeze of a
Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see much advantage in changing these to asserts - in a
debug build, that will promote ERROR to PANIC; whereas in a
production build, they'll cause a random failure somewhere
downstream.
The reason Assert is appropriate is that it is *impossible* to hit
that
Tom Lane wrote:
There might perhaps be some value in adding a warning like this if
it were enabled per-table (and not enabled by default).
It only fires where a maximum has been declared and is exceeded.
Most HTABs don't declare a maximum -- they leave it at zero. These
are ignored.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:02, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
(1) Could you post the non-default configuration settings?
none. it can happen with just initdb+createdb'ed database.
(2) How many connections are in use in your testing?
4.
(3) Can you give a rough categorization of how many of what
On Mar 27, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I just dusted off this code and brought it back to current again. Basically
a lot of reformatting the new performance farm parts to minimize their diff.
Once that was done, all of the other buildfarm client updates since
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:02, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do this (haven't reconsidered the whole
thread) - but it doesn't solve the issue I originally raised.
I'm somewhat inclined to just remove this from the list of open items. It
doesn't seem
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:51:13PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is freed.
Do the other PLs we ship need similar fixes?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Perhaps Use CREATE EXTENSION or CREATE LANGUAGE to load ... ?
The only better phrasing I can think of would be to replace the or with
then. Or… is it practical here to look at the available extensions
and choose the HINT depending on whether the given
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:14:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So the result of a cast would be the collation of the specified
type/domain with state implicit.
Hm. That makes sense for explicit CAST syntax, but what about a
function returning a collatable type? In particular, applying this
Proposed changes: Make synchronous_replication into an enum, so we
can now also say synchronous_replication = recv, flush or apply as
well as on or off.
synchronous_replication = on is the same as flush
Benefit: Allows 2 additional wait modes for sync rep: wait for
receive and wait for apply.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:21:18PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
Is there some simple possibility to check a rights from stored procedure?
Well, there's the catalog lookup method:
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM pg_catalog.pg_roles WHERE rolname=$1 AND rolsuper)
Is that what you had in
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
things for future releases.
I like all of:
1) move the truncating to a new
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
things for future releases.
That seems unsafe - things can change under you
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I was hoping to fine tune/tweak Sync Rep after feedback during beta,
but my understanding of current consensus is that that will be too
late to make user visible changes. So I'm proposing this change now,
before Beta,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I was hoping to fine tune/tweak Sync Rep after feedback during beta,
but my understanding of current consensus is that that will be too
late to make user visible changes. So I'm proposing this change now,
before Beta,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Are the master and standby on same system or are they separated by a network?
I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
When I first
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Susanne Ebrecht
susa...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hello,
During translating the docs I found the following sentence
in the tutorial section about createdb:
Database names must have an alphabetic first character
and are limited to 63 characters
I wondered -
On 3/27/2011 6:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieckjanwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
things for future releases.
That
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 3/27/2011 6:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieckjanwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
things for future releases.
That
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:51:13PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is freed.
Do the other PLs we ship need similar fixes?
Offhand I think the other PLs leave management of prepared plans to the
user. If
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
I like all of:
1) move the truncating to a new transaction just like we currently do
toast tables in a separate transaction from the main vacuum.
+1 if we are going to continue the behavior of allowing other
transactions to kick autovac off the exclusive
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm
quite surprised to see there is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can
refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there
as well as the potential for oversights of this sort.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can
refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:31 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
dep...@depesz.com wrote:
I can also setup streaming slave, and it also works, but when I create
trigger file to promote this slave to master it fails with error:
2011-03-24 21:01:58.051 CET @ 9680 LOG: trigger file found:
55 matches
Mail list logo
