Re: High CPU Usage of "SET ROLE"

2018-10-30 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:50 PM Ulf Lohbrügge wrote: > When I use the psql cli on the same database I can see via "\timing" that > the first statement after "RESET ROLE;" is significantly slower. I was even > able to strip it down to two statements ("SET ROLE ...;" and "RESET ROLE;"): > > ... >

Re: High CPU Usage of "SET ROLE"

2018-10-30 Thread Tom Lane
=?UTF-8?Q?Ulf_Lohbr=C3=BCgge?= writes: > I think I have found something here. It looks like that the order of > statements is affecting their duration. I somehow have the feeling that the > first statement after "RESET ROLE;" experiences a performance degradation. Hm. It's well known that the

Re: High CPU Usage of "SET ROLE"

2018-10-30 Thread Ulf Lohbrügge
> > It seems plausible to guess that you've hit some behavior that's O(N^2) > in the number of objects (for some object type or other). Perhaps "perf" > or a similar tool would give some insight into where the bottleneck is. > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Profiling_with_perf Thanks for

Re: SCRAM question

2018-10-30 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 10/30/18 10:51 AM, MichaelDBA wrote: I am using pgadmin4 version 3.4 with PG 11.0 and I get this error when I try to connect with scram authorization: User "myuser" does not have a valid SCRAM verifier. How do I get around this? And also how would I do this for psql? You need to update

SCRAM question

2018-10-30 Thread MichaelDBA
I am using pgadmin4 version 3.4 with PG 11.0 and I get this error when I try to connect with scram authorization: User "myuser" does not have a valid SCRAM verifier. How do I get around this? And also how would I do this for psql? Regards, Michael Vitale

Re: Indexes on UUID - Fragmentation Issue

2018-10-30 Thread Uday Bhaskar V
We have migrated our Database from Oracle to Postgresql there because of replication we went for UUIDs. I have C function ready, will try. Thanks, Uday On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:58 PM Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:18 AM Uday Bhaskar V > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have