LinkedIn
Gourish Singbal requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
Dimi,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- Gourish
Accept invitation from Gourish Singbal
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-w2td3k-gbbslalr-65/pkJZ
And, read this:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Richard Yen wrote:
One more thing, do you have long running transactions during these periods?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Richard Yen wrote:
> This leads me to believe that there was a sudden flurry of write activity
> that occurred, and the process that would flush WAL files to /db/data/
> couldn't keep up, thereby filling up the disk. I'm wondering if anyone else
> out there migh
Hi everyone,
I'm running 8.4.2 on a CentOS machine, and postgres recently died with signal 6
because the pg_xlog partition filled up (33GB) on 7/4/10 10:34:23 (perfect
timing, as I was hiking in the mountains in the remotest parts of our country).
I did some digging and found the following:
-
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, MUHAMMAD ASIF wrote:
>> A clarification of terms may help to start. The "terminals per
>> warehouse" in the scripts correlates to the number terminals emulated.
>> An emulated terminal is tied to a warehouse's district. In other
>> words, the number of terminals tr
Eliot Gable writes:
> Do I need to somehow force the server to unload and then re-load this .so
> file each time I build a new version of it? If so, how do I do that?
Start a new database session.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-perfo
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eliot Gable <
egable+pgsql-performa...@gmail.com >wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This approach works, but you could also use the SFRM_Materialize mode
>> and calculate the entire result set in one go. That tends to be simple
Hi Stephen,
Constraint exclusion was initially partition and I set it to "on" as suggested
and
tried that - the query planner in both cases was correctly identifying the
specific partitions being queried - the problem seems to be a generic issue
related to the way queries on partition table
Ranga,
* Ranga Gopalan (ranga_gopa...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this
> link:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
>
> Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>
> This approach works, but you could also use the SFRM_Materialize mode
> and calculate the entire result set in one go. That tends to be simpler.
> See, for example crosstab_hash() in contrib/tablefunc for an example.
>
> FWIW, there are also
On 07/06/2010 12:42 PM, Eliot Gable wrote:
> Thanks for suggesting array_unnest(). I think that will actually prove
> more useful to me than the other example I'm using for extracting my
> data from an array. I was actually planning on computing the order on
> the first call and storing it in a lin
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eliot Gable
> >
> wrote:
> > Read RFC 2782 on random weighted load balancing of SRV records inside
> DNS.
>
> It may be asking a bit much to expect people here to read an RFC to
> figure out how to help you solve
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ranga Gopalan
wrote:
> It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this
> link:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
>
> Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone is work
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a tree-like table with a three-field PK (name, date, id) and one
> parent field.
> It has 5k to 6k records as of now, but it will hold about 1 million records.
>
> I am trying the following WITH RECURSIVE query:
>
> WITH RE
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eliot Gable
wrote:
> Read RFC 2782 on random weighted load balancing of SRV records inside DNS.
It may be asking a bit much to expect people here to read an RFC to
figure out how to help you solve this problem, but...
> I've looked through the documentation on how
Deborah Fuentes wrote:
> 1. Create tables - 1127
>
> 2. Create indexes - approximately 7000
What does your postgresql.conf look like (excluding all comments)?
How many connections are you using to create these tables and indexes?
What else is running on the machine?
-Kevin
Rajesh,
We are not loading any data. There are only two steps present:
1. Create tables - 1127
2. Create indexes - approximately 7000
The CPU spikes immediately when the tables are being created.
Regards,
Deb
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah [mailto:mallah.raj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Frida
Hi,
It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this link:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone is working on or is there a
known work around?
Thanks,
Ranga
Hello,
Postgresql configuration was default. So I take a look at pgtune which
help me start a bit of tuning. I thought that the planner mistake could
come from the default low memory configuration. But after applying new
parameters, nothing has changed. The query is still low, the execution
p
20 matches
Mail list logo
