Hi All,
I am having a trigger in table, If i update the the table manually it is
not taking time(say 200ms per row), But if i update the table through procedure
the trigger is taking time to fire(say 7 to 10 seconds per row).
How can i make the trigger to fire immediately?
Regards,
Ram
Ow Mun Heng schrieb:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:57 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
This is what I see on the table
NEW attypmod = -1
OLD attypmod = 8
8 means varchar(4) which is what you said you had (4+4)
-1 means unlimited size.
This is cool.
If it
I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm
less than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is
nice, but start seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've
found posts on the internets about others having similar issues). My
last box with a 3ware I
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> If it were this simple a change, I'm not certain why (I believe) PG is
> checking each and every row to see if it will fit into the new column
> definition/type.
Because the code that does the ALTER TYPE is very generic, and it
doesn't (yet) have an optimization that tells i
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than
> pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start
> seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the
> internets
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>> If it were this simple a change, I'm not certain why (I believe) PG is
>> checking each and every row to see if it will fit into the new column
>> definition/type.
> Because the code that does the ALTER TYPE is very generic, and i
>>> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>>> If it were this simple a change, I'm not certain why (I believe) PG
is
>>> checking each and every row to see if it will fit into the new
column
>>> definition/type.
>
>> Because the co
The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts
from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference.
The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer.
FWIW we got some Arecas at one point and had trouble getting them
configured and w
Hi,
I just noticed what looks like a deadlock situation on postgresql 8.2.4. After more than an hour of running REINDEX, two
processes are each in a "waiting" state and yet have no time used. This is also the first time I've seen this condition after
some 48 hours of continuous load testing.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts
> from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference.
>
> The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer.
Do
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote:
I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than
pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start
seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the
internets about others having similar issues
Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just noticed what looks like a deadlock situation on postgresql
> 8.2.4.
Did you look into pg_locks to see what locks those transactions have and
are waiting for?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pg
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote:
>
>> I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less
>> than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start
>> seeking around and you kick it in
On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
From my experience, the Areca controllers are difficult to operate.
Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we
have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter
to the entire purpose of a RAID. We fin
On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
My last box with a 3ware I simply had it in jbod mode and used sw
raid and it smoked the hw.
That is often the case no matter which hardware controller you've
got, particularly in more complicated RAID setups. You might want
to consider that
Tom Lane wrote:
Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just noticed what looks like a deadlock situation on postgresql
8.2.4.
Did you look into pg_locks to see what locks those transactions have and
are waiting for?
regards, tom lane
No. Unlike a typical transa
PostgreSQL: 8.2
How can you identify how many inserts are being done in a given time
frame for a database?
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu
My e-mail address has ch
PostgreSQL: 8.2
How can I identify how many inserts and updates are being done in a
given time frame for a database?
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu
My e-mail a
Have a look at the pg_stat_user_tables table.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Campbell, Lance wrote:
PostgreSQL: 8.2
How can I identify how many inserts and updates are being done in a
given time frame for a database?
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Pub
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote:
Yeah, it'd be fun to run more benchmarks, but the beefy box, for some reason,
is a prod box busy 24/7. no time to nuke it and fidgit :)
If you've got an existing array and you want to switch to another
controller, that may not work without nuking no matter wh
20 matches
Mail list logo
