I have encountered a problem while restoring the database. There is a
table that contains XML data (BLOB), ~ 3 000 000 records, ~ 5.5Gb of
data. pg_restore has been running for a week without any considerable
progress. There are plenty of lines like these in the log:
pg_restore: processing
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I wonder if it would be possible to have a very short critical section
where we grab the partition lock, acquire the heavyweight lock, and
release the partition lock; and then only as a second step record (in
the form of a PROCLOCK) the fact that we
Hi Tom
I suspect I may be missing something here, but I think it's a pretty
universal truism that cache lines are aligned to power-of-2 memory
addresses, so it would suffice to ensure during setup that the lower order n
bits of the object address are all zeros for each critical object; if the
We are in the process of deciding on how to proceed on a database upgrade.
We currently have MS SQL 2000 running on Windows 2003 (on my test server).
I was shocked at the cost for MS SQL 2008 R2 for a new server (2 CPU
license). I started comparing DB’s and came across postgresql. It seemed
to
On 7 December 2010 18:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jignesh Shah jks...@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what I concluded when I was doing the sysbench simple
read-only test. I had also tried with different lock partitions and it
did not help since
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I wonder if it would be possible to have a very short critical section
where we grab the partition lock, acquire the heavyweight lock, and
release the partition lock; and then only as
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 7 December 2010 18:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jignesh Shah jks...@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what I concluded when I was doing the sysbench simple
read-only test. I
Tom Polak t...@rockfordarearealtors.org wrote:
the best I could get it to was 7.5 seconds.
select name,address,city,state,statename,stateid,other from
pgtemp1 left join pgtemp2 on state=stateid
We'd need a lot more information. Please read this and post again:
On 12/7/2010 11:34 AM, Tom Polak wrote:
We are in the process of deciding on how to proceed on a database
upgrade. We currently have MS SQL 2000 running on Windows 2003 (on my
test server). I was shocked at the cost for MS SQL 2008 R2 for a new
server (2 CPU license). I started comparing DB’s
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 18:34:25 Tom Polak wrote:
Then I did the same test via Postgresql and it took 8.85 seconds! I tried
it again as I thought I did something wrong. I did a few tweaks such as
increasing the shared buffers. Still the best I could get it to was 7.5
seconds. This is
On 7 December 2010 19:10, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL code but if we're
brainstorming... if you're only trying to protect against a small
number of expensive operations (like DROP, etc.) that don't really
happen often, wouldn't an atomic
On 12/7/10 9:34 AM, Tom Polak wrote:
We are in the process of deciding on how to proceed on a database upgrade. We
currently have MS SQL 2000 running on Windows 2003 (on my test server). I was
shocked at the cost for MS SQL 2008 R2 for a new server (2 CPU license). I
started comparing DB’s
On 12/7/2010 1:22 PM, Justin Pitts wrote:
Also, as a fair warning: mssql doesn't really care about transactions, but
PG really does. Make sure all your code is properly starting and commiting
transactions.
-Andy
I do not understand that statement. Can you explain it a bit better?
In mssql
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
In PG the first statement you fire off (like an insert into for example)
will start a transaction. If you dont commit before you disconnect that
transaction will be rolled back. Even worse, if your program does not
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:56:51AM -0800, Richard Broersma wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
In PG the first statement you fire off (like an insert into for example)
will start a transaction. ?If you dont commit before you disconnect that
On 07/12/2010 7:43 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:22 PM, Justin Pitts wrote:
Also, as a fair warning: mssql doesn't really care about
transactions, but
PG really does. Make sure all your code is properly starting and
commiting
transactions.
-Andy
I do not understand that
On 12/7/2010 2:10 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:56:51AM -0800, Richard Broersma wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Andy Colsona...@squeakycode.net wrote:
In PG the first statement you fire off (like an insert into for example)
will start a transaction. ?If you
What I was really after was a quick comparison between the two. I did not
create anything special, just the two tables. One table SQL generated the
records for me. I did not tweak anything after installing either system.
There was a primary key on the ID field of both tables, no indexes though
2010/12/7 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL code but if we're
brainstorming... if you're only trying to protect against a small
number of expensive operations (like DROP, etc.) that
On 12/7/10 1:29 PM, Tom Polak wrote:
What I was really after was a quick comparison between the two. I did not
create anything special, just the two tables. One table SQL generated the
records for me. I did not tweak anything after installing either system.
That's not a valid test.
On 07/12/2010 9:29 PM, Tom Polak wrote:
From EXPLAIN ANALYZE I can see the query ran much faster.
Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..138.04 rows=1001 width=1298) (actual
time=0.036..4.679 rows=1001 loops=1)
Join Filter: (pgtemp1.state = pgtemp2.stateid)
- Seq Scan on pgtemp1
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, felix crucialfe...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks for the replies !,
but actually I did figure out how to kill it
but pb_cancel_backend didn't work. here's some notes:
this has been hung for 5 days:
ns | 32681 | nssql | IDLE in transaction | f |
Tom Polak t...@rockfordarearealtors.org wrote:
I did not tweak anything after installing either system.
PostgreSQL is set up with defaults such that it will start up and
run on the most ancient an underpowered system people are likely to
have lying around. It is expected that people will
2010/12/7 Віталій Тимчишин tiv...@gmail.com:
2010/12/7 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL code but if we're
brainstorming... if you're only trying to protect against a small
number
2010/12/7 Віталій Тимчишин tiv...@gmail.com:
As far as I can see from the source, there is a lot of code executed under
the partition lock protection, like two hash searches (and possibly
allocations).
Yeah, that was my concern, too, though Tom seems skeptical (perhaps
rightly). And I'm not
2010/12/7 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
2010/12/7 Віталій Тимчишин tiv...@gmail.com:
As far as I can see from the source, there is a lot of code executed under
the partition lock protection, like two hash searches (and possibly
allocations).
Yeah, that was my concern, too, though Tom
26 matches
Mail list logo
