On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 21:00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see if I have been paying enough attention to the SQL gurus.
The planner is making a different estimate of how many deprecated'' versus
how many broken ''.
I would try SET STATISTICS to a larger number on the ports table,
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 20:37 -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
changes from ports.broken to ports.deprecated. I don't see why.
Well, I do
Hi,
I have the go ahead of a customer to do some testing on Postgresql in a couple
of weeks as a
replacement for Oracle.
The reason for the test is that the number of users of the warehouse is going
to increase and this
will have a serious impact on licencing costs. (I bet that sounds
Hi to all, I have the following 2 examples. Now,
regarding on the offset if it is small(10) or big(5) what is the impact
on the performance of the query?? I noticed that if I return more
data's(columns) orif I make more joinsthen the query runs even
slower if the OFFSET is bigger. How
On 20 Jan 2005 at 9:34, Ragnar Hafstað wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 20:37 -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
changes from ports.broken to
Andrei Bintintan wrote:
Hi to all,
I have the following 2 examples. Now, regarding on the offset if it
is small(10) or big(5) what is the impact on the performance of
the query?? I noticed that if I return more data's(columns) or if I
make more joins then the query runs even slower if the
Andrei:
Hi to all,
I have the following 2 examples. Now, regarding on the offset if it is
small(10) or big(5) what is the impact on the performance of the query?? I
noticed that if I return more data's(columns) or if I make more joins then the
query runs even slower if the OFFSET is
If you're using this to provide pages of results, could you use a
cursor?
What do you mean by that? Cursor?
Yes I'm using this to provide pages, but If I jump to the last pages it
goes very slow.
Andy.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Huxton dev@archonet.com
To: Andrei Bintintan
Dear community,
My company, which I actually represent, is a fervent user of PostgreSQL.
We used to make all our applications using PostgreSQL for more than 5 years.
We usually do classical client/server applications under Linux, and Web
interface (php, perl, C/C++). We used to manage also
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
changes from ports.broken to ports.deprecated. I don't see why.
Well, I do see why: a sequential
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:03:31 +0100, Hervé Piedvache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We were at this moment thinking about a Cluster solution ... We saw on the
Internet many solution talking about Cluster solution using MySQL ... but
nothing about PostgreSQL ... the idea is to use several servers to
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You want: http://www.slony.info/
Do we have to backport our development to MySQL for this kind of problem ?
Is there any other solution than a Cluster for our problem ?
Well, Slony does replication which is basically what you want :)
* Matt Casters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have the go ahead of a customer to do some testing on Postgresql in a
couple of weeks as a
replacement for Oracle.
The reason for the test is that the number of users of the warehouse is going
to increase and this
will have a serious impact on
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You might look into pg_pool. Another possibility would be slony, though
I'm not sure it's to the point you need it at yet, depends on if you can
handle some delay before an insert makes
On 20 Jan 2005 at 6:14, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
changes from ports.broken to
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:24, Christopher Kings-Lynne a écrit :
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You want: http://www.slony.info/
Do we have to backport our development to MySQL for this kind of problem
? Is there any other solution than a Cluster for our
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:38, Christopher Kings-Lynne a écrit :
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution ...
I don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow up
to 50 Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
This
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:30, Stephen Frost a écrit :
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You might look into pg_pool. Another possibility would be slony, though
I'm not sure it's to the point you need it at yet,
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution ... I
don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow up to 50
Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
This solution is not very realistic for me ...
I need a Cluster solution not a
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:30, Stephen Frost a écrit :
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You might look into pg_pool. Another possibility would be slony, though
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Dear community,
My company, which I actually represent, is a fervent user of PostgreSQL.
We used to make all our applications using PostgreSQL for more than 5 years.
We usually do classical client/server applications under Linux, and Web
interface (php, perl, C/C++). We
On Jan 20, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution
... I
don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow
up to 50
Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
Slony doesn't use much ram. The
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:30, Stephen Frost a écrit :
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You might look into pg_pool. Another
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution ...
I don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow up
to 50 Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
This solution is not very realistic for me ...
I need a Cluster solution not a
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:48, Jeff a écrit :
On Jan 20, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution
... I
don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow
up to 50
Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb
Joshua,
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:44, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
My company, which I actually represent, is a fervent user of PostgreSQL.
We used to make all our applications using PostgreSQL for more than 5
years. We usually do classical client/server applications
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne a écrit :
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution
... I don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will
grow up to 50 Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server
??? This
No please do not talk about this again ... I'm looking about a PostgreSQL
solution ... I know RAC ... and I'm not able to pay for a RAC certify
hardware configuration plus a RAC Licence.
What you want does not exist for PostgreSQL. You will either
have to build it yourself or pay somebody to
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
PostgreSQL has replication, but not partitioning (which is what you want).
It doesn't have multi-server partitioning.. It's got partitioning
within a single server (doesn't it? I thought it did, I know it was
discussed w/ the guy from Cox
So what we would like to get is a pool of small servers able to make one
virtual server ... for that is called a Cluster ... no ?
I know they are not using PostgreSQL ... but how a company like Google do to
get an incredible database in size and so quick access ?
You could use dblink with
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Or you could fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for Oracle's
RAC.
No please do not talk about this again ... I'm looking about a
PostgreSQL solution ... I know RAC ... and I'm not able to pay for a
RAC certify hardware configuration plus a RAC Licence.
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:05, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Or you could fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for Oracle's
RAC.
No please do not talk about this again ... I'm looking about a
PostgreSQL solution ... I know RAC ... and I'm not able to
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I know they are not using PostgreSQL ... but how a company like Google do to
get an incredible database in size and so quick access ?
They segment their data across multiple machines and have an algorithm
which tells the application layer which
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
No ... as I have said ... how I'll manage a database getting a table of may be
250 000 000 records ? I'll need incredible servers ... to get quick access or
index reading ... no ?
So what we would like to get is a pool of small servers able to make one
virtual server ...
then I was thinking. Couldn't he use
multiple databases
over multiple servers with dblink?
It is not exactly how I would want to do it, but it would provide what
he needs I think???
Yes seems to be the only solution ... but I'm a little disapointed about
this ... could you explain me why
No please do not talk about this again ... I'm looking about a PostgreSQL
solution ... I know RAC ... and I'm not able to pay for a RAC certify
hardware configuration plus a RAC Licence.
Are you totally certain you can't solve your problem with a single server
solution?
How about:
Price out
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 at 6:14, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE
Andrei Bintintan wrote:
If you're using this to provide pages of results, could you use a
cursor?
What do you mean by that? Cursor?
Yes I'm using this to provide pages, but If I jump to the last pages
it goes very slow.
DECLARE mycursor CURSOR FOR SELECT * FROM ...
FETCH FORWARD 10 IN mycursor;
Google uses something called the google filesystem, look it up in
google. It is a distributed file system.
Dave
Herv Piedvache wrote:
Joshua,
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:44, Joshua D. Drake a crit :
Herv Piedvache wrote:
My company, which I actually represent,
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:14, Steve Wampler a écrit :
Once you've got the data partitioned, the question becomes one of
how to inhance performance/scalability. Have you considered RAIDb?
No but I'll seems to be very interesting ... close to the explanation of
Joshua ... but automaticly done
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:23, Dave Cramer a écrit :
Google uses something called the google filesystem, look it up in
google. It is a distributed file system.
Yes that's another point I'm working on ... make a cluster of server using
GFS ... and making PostgreSQL running with it ...
But I
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:16, Merlin Moncure a écrit :
No please do not talk about this again ... I'm looking about a PostgreSQL
solution ... I know RAC ... and I'm not able to pay for a RAC certify
hardware configuration plus a RAC Licence.
Are you totally certain you can't solve your
On 20 Jan 2005 at 7:26, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 at 6:14, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
question.
The
I'm dealing with big database [3.8 Gb] and records of 3 millions . Some of the
query seems to be slow eventhough just a few users in the night. I would like
to know which parameter list below is most effective in rising the speed of
these queries?
Shmmax = 32384*8192 =265289728
Share buffer =
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:23, Dave Cramer a écrit :
Google uses something called the google filesystem, look it up in
google. It is a distributed file system.
Yes that's another point I'm working on ... make a cluster of server using
GFS ... and making PostgreSQL running
Probably by carefully partitioning their data. I can't imagine anything
being fast on a single table in 250,000,000 tuple range. Nor can I
really imagine any database that efficiently splits a single table
across multiple machines (or even inefficiently unless some internal
partitioning is being
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Probably by carefully partitioning their data. I can't imagine anything
being fast on a single table in 250,000,000 tuple range. Nor can I
really imagine any database that efficiently splits a single table
across multiple machines (or even inefficiently unless some
I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer.
Still need one honking server.
Rick
Stephen Frost
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm dealing with big database [3.8 Gb] and records of 3 millions . Some of the
query seems to be slow eventhough just a few users in the night. I would like
to know which parameter list below is most effective in rising the speed of
these queries?
Shmmax = 32384*8192
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 15:36 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:24, Christopher Kings-Lynne a écrit :
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You want: http://www.slony.info/
Do we have to backport our development to MySQL for this kind
I have never seen benchmarks for RAID 0+1. Very few people use it
because it's not very fault tolerant, so I couldn't answer for sure.
I would imagine that RAID 0+1 could acheive better read throughput
because you could, in theory, read from each half of the mirror
independantly. Write would be
What you want is some kind of huge pararell computing , isn't it? I have heard
from many groups of Japanese Pgsql developer did it but they are talking in
japanese website and of course in Japanese.
I can name one of them Asushi Mitani and his website
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer.
Still need one honking server.
That's interesting- can a PostgreSQL partition be acress multiple
tablespaces?
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I am curious - I wasn't aware that postgresql supported partitioned tables,
Could someone point me to the docs on this.
Thanks,
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:26:03 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matt Casters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have the go ahead
Matt Casters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been reading up on partitioned tabes on pgsql, will the performance
benefit will be comparable to Oracle partitioned tables?
Postgres doesn't have any built-in support for partitioned tables. You can do
it the same way people did it on Oracle up
I am also very interesting in this very question.. Is there any way to
declare a persistant cursor that remains open between pg sessions?
This would be better than a temp table because you would not have to
do the initial select and insert into a fresh table and incur those IO
costs, which are
Steve Wampler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
No ... as I have said ... how I'll manage a database getting a table of may
be 250 000 000 records ? I'll need incredible servers ... to get quick
access
or index reading ... no ?
Probably by carefully partitioning
Richard Huxton wrote:
If you've got a web-application then you'll probably want to insert the
results into a cache table for later use.
If I have quite a bit of activity like this (people selecting 1 out
of a few million rows and paging through them in a web browser), would
it be good to
Alex Turner wrote:
I am also very interesting in this very question.. Is there any way
to declare a persistant cursor that remains open between pg sessions?
Not sure how this would work. What do you do with multiple connections?
Only one can access the cursor, so which should it be?
This would
Andrei Bintintan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're using this to provide pages of results, could you use a cursor?
What do you mean by that? Cursor?
Yes I'm using this to provide pages, but If I jump to the last pages it goes
very slow.
The best way to do pages for is not to use offset
I am also very interesting in this very question.. Is there any way to
declare a persistant cursor that remains open between pg sessions?
This would be better than a temp table because you would not have to
do the initial select and insert into a fresh table and incur those IO
costs, which
Ron Mayer wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
If you've got a web-application then you'll probably want to insert
the results into a cache table for later use.
If I have quite a bit of activity like this (people selecting 1 out
of a few million rows and paging through them in a web browser), would
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution ... I
don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow up to 50
Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
This solution is not very realistic for me ...
Have you
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:32:27 +0100, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 16:23, Dave Cramer a écrit :
Google uses something called the google filesystem, look it up in
google. It is a distributed file system.
Yes that's another point I'm working on ... make a cluster of server
The problem is very large ammounts of data that needs to be both read
and updated. If you replicate a system, you will need to
intelligently route the reads to the server that has the data in RAM
or you will always be hitting DIsk which is slow. This kind of routing
AFAIK is not possible with
Greg Stark wrote:
Andrei Bintintan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're using this to provide pages of results, could you use a cursor?
What do you mean by that? Cursor?
Yes I'm using this to provide pages, but If I jump to the last pages it goes
very slow.
The best way to do pages for is not to
On January 20, 2005 06:49 am, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:30, Stephen Frost a écrit :
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
You
On January 20, 2005 06:51 am, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution
... I don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will
grow up to 50 Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server
??? This solution is
Isn't this a prime example of when to use a servlet or something similar
in function? It will create the cursor, maintain it, and fetch against
it for a particular page.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:21 AM
To:
Randolf Richardson wrote:
While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
tidbit of information when selling people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL
was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs
information. ...
Do you have a link for that
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build the
farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on it
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:59 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
The best way to do pages for is not to use offset or cursors but to use an
index. This only works if you can enumerate all the sort orders the
application might be using and can have an index on each of them.
To do this the query would
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 19:12 +, Ragnar Hafstað wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:59 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
The best way to do pages for is not to use offset or cursors but to use an
index. This only works if you can enumerate all the sort orders the
application might be using and can
On January 20, 2005 10:42 am, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build
the farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the
whole database in
this will only work unchanged if the index is unique. imagine , for
example if you have more than 50 rows with the same value of col.
one way to fix this is to use ORDER BY col,oid
nope! oid is
1. deprecated
2. not guaranteed to be unique even inside a (large) table.
Use a sequence
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 19:09, Bruno Almeida do Lago a écrit :
Could you explain us what do you have in mind for that solution? I mean,
forget the PostgreSQL (or any other database) restrictions and explain us
how this hardware would be. Where the data would be stored?
I've something in mind
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:13:17 -0700, Steve Wampler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mitch Pirtle wrote:
But that's not enough, because you're going to be running separate
postgresql backends on the different hosts, and there are
definitely consistency issues with trying to do that. So far as
I know
Hervé Piedvache [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 19:09, Bruno Almeida do Lago a écrit :
Could you explain us what do you have in mind for that solution? I mean,
forget the PostgreSQL (or any other database) restrictions and explain us
how this hardware would be. Where the
Thanks Stephen,
My main concern is to get as much read performance on the disks as possible
on this given system. CPU is rarely a problem on a typical data warehouse
system, this one's not any different.
We basically have 2 RAID5 disk sets (300Gb) and 150Gb) with a third one
coming
Two way xeon's are as fast as a single opteron, 150M rows isn't a big
deal.
Clustering isn't really the solution, I fail to see how clustering
actually helps since it has to slow down file access.
Dave
Herv Piedvache wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 19:09, Bruno Almeida do Lago a crit :
Dealing about the hardware, for the moment we have only a bi-pentium Xeon
2.8Ghz with 4 Gb of RAM ... and we saw we had bad performance results ...
so
we are thinking about a new solution with maybe several servers (server
design may vary from one to other) ... to get a kind of cluster to get
Matt Casters wrote:
Thanks Stephen,
My main concern is to get as much read performance on the disks as possible
on this given system. CPU is rarely a problem on a typical data warehouse
system, this one's not any different.
We basically have 2 RAID5 disk sets (300Gb) and 150Gb) with a third
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Dealing about the hardware, for the moment we have only a bi-pentium Xeon
2.8Ghz with 4 Gb of RAM ... and we saw we had bad performance results ... so
we are thinking about a new solution with maybe several servers (server
design may vary from one to other) ... to get a
Joshua,
Actually that's a great idea!
I'll have to check if Solaris wants to play ball though.
We'll have to see as we don't have the new disks yet, ETA is next week.
Cheers,
Matt
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 20 januari
How do you create a temporary view that has only a small subset of the
data from the DB init? (Links to docs are fine - I can read ;). My
query isn't all that complex, and my number of records might be from
10 to 2k depending on how I implement it.
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:36 am, Dan Langille wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 at 7:26, Stephan Szabo wrote:
[snip]
Honestly I expected it to be slower (which it was), but I figured it's
worth seeing what alternate plans it'll generate (specifically to see how
it cost a nested loop on that join to
Matt Casters wrote:
Hi,
My questions to the list are: has this sort of thing been attempted before? If
so, what where the
performance results compared to Oracle?
I've been reading up on partitioned tabes on pgsql, will the performance
benefit will be
comparable to Oracle partitioned tables?
What
Ron Mayer wrote:
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=MSR-TR-2002-53
Wrong link...
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?type=Technical%20Reportid=812
This is the one that discusses scalability, price, performance,
failover, power consumption, hardware
Merlin Moncure wrote:
...You need to build a bigger, faster box with lots of storage...
Clustering ...
B: will cost you more, not less
Is this still true when you get to 5-way or 17-way systems?
My (somewhat outdated) impression is that up to about 4-way systems
they're price competitive; but
I sometimes also think it's fun to point out that Postgresql
bigger companies supporting it's software - like this one:
http://www.fastware.com.au/docs/FujitsuSupportedPostgreSQLWhitePaper.pdf
with $43 billion revenue -- instead of those little companies
like Mysql AB or Oracle.
:)
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:31:29 -0500,
Alex Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am curious - I wasn't aware that postgresql supported partitioned tables,
Could someone point me to the docs on this.
Some people have been doing it using a union view. There isn't actually
a partition feature.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:14:28 +0100,
Bernd Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wondered why the planner was making such bad assumptions about the
number of rows to find and had a look at pg_stats. and there was the
surprise:
there is no entry in pg_stats for that column at all!! I can
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
do it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:42 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM]
On 21 Jan 2005 at 8:38, Russell Smith wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:36 am, Dan Langille wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 at 7:26, Stephan Szabo wrote:
[snip]
Honestly I expected it to be slower (which it was), but I figured
it's worth seeing what alternate plans it'll generate
(specifically
Bruno,
Which brings up another question: why not just cluster at the hardware
layer? Get an external fiberchannel array, and cluster a bunch of dual
Opterons, all sharing that storage. In that sense you would be getting
one big PostgreSQL 'image' running across all of the servers.
Or is
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:08:47AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
PostgreSQL has replication, but not partitioning (which is what you want).
It doesn't have multi-server partitioning.. It's got partitioning
within a single server (doesn't
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:40:02PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
do it.
In a nutshell, in a clustered environment (which iirc in oracle means
shared disks), they use a set of files for locking and consistency
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 07:12:42AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
then I was thinking. Couldn't he use
multiple databases
over multiple servers with dblink?
It is not exactly how I would want to do it, but it would provide what
he needs I think???
Yes seems to be the only
On January 20, 2005 06:49 am, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le Jeudi 20 Janvier 2005 15:30, Stephen Frost a écrit :
* Herv? Piedvache ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is there any solution with PostgreSQL matching these needs ... ?
Oracle's RAC is good, but I think it's best to view it as a step in the high
availability direction rather than a performance enhancer. While it can help
your application scale up, that depends on the usage pattern. Also it's not
100% transparent to the application for example you can't depend
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
