Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Any sane text search application is going to try to filter out
common words as stopwords; it's only the failure to do that that's
making this run slow.
I'd rather have
Grant Masan grant.mas...@gmail.com wrote:
max_connections = 80
shared_buffers = 512MB
temp_buffers = 8MB
work_mem = 20MB
maintenance_work_mem = 384MB
wal_buffers = 8MB
checkpoint_segments = 128MB
effective_cache_size = 2304MB
checkpoint_timeout = 1h
Pending further information, these
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Perhaps I'm missing something. My point was that there are words
which are too common to be useful for index searches, yet uncommon
enough to usefully limit the results. These words could typically
benefit from tsearch2 style parsing and
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The answer to that clearly is to not index common terms
My understanding is that we don't currently get statistics on how
common the terms in a tsvector column are until we ANALYZE the *index*
created from it. Seems like sort of a Catch 22. Also, if we
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has ever confirmed that probing for the more
frequent term through the index is *ever* a win, versus using the
index for the most common of the top level AND conditions and doing
the rest on recheck.
s/most/least/
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Grant Masan grant.mas...@gmail.com wrote:
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.0030
cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0010
cpu_operator_cost = 0.0005
Why did you make these adjustments? I usually have to change the
ratio between page
All,
I'm trying to understand the free memory usage and why it falls below
17G sometimes and what could be causing it. Any pointers would be
appreciated.
r...@prod1 # prtconf
System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u
Memory size: 32768 Megabytes
[postg...@prod1 ~]$ vmstat 5 10
kthr
Tom Lane wrote:
It may well be that Jesper's identified a place where the GIN code could
be improved --- it seems like having the top-level search logic be more
aware of the AND/OR structure of queries would be useful. But the
particular example shown here doesn't make a very good case for
David Kerr wrote:
Does/is it possible for the PG optimizer come up with differnet plans when
you're using bind variables vs when you send static values?
Yes, if the bind variable form causes your DB access driver to use a
server-side prepared statement. Pg can't use its statistics to improve
Does/is it possible for the PG optimizer come up with differnet plans when
you're using bind variables vs when you send static values?
like if my query was
select * from users (add a bunch of complex joins) where username = 'dave'
vs
select * from users (add a bunch of complex joins) where
On 11/03/2009 07:16 PM, Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84 wrote:
All,
I'm trying to understand the free memory usage and why it falls below
17G sometimes and what could be causing it. Any pointers would be
appreciated.
r...@prod1 # prtconf
System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u
Memory size: 32768
Brian Karlak wrote:
The setup is relatively simple: there is a central queue table in
postgres. Worker daemons do a bounded, ordered, limited SELECT to grab
a row, which they lock by setting a value in the queue.status column.
You can probably do an UPDATE ... RETURNING to turn that into
Hi:
I have an application wherein a process needs to read data from a stream and
store the records for further analysis and reporting. The data in the stream is
in the form of variable length records with clearly defined fields - so it can
be stored in a database or in a file. The only caveat
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:43:16AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
- David Kerr wrote:
- Does/is it possible for the PG optimizer come up with differnet plans when
- you're using bind variables vs when you send static values?
-
- Yes, if the bind variable form causes your DB access driver to use a
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I don't have a good answer for you there. Perhaps using Pg's locking
to
do your queueing, rather than updating a status flag, might let you
use
a cursor? Have a look at the list archives - there's been a fair bit
of
discussion of queuing
Hello All --
I have a simple queuing application written on top of postgres which
I'm trying to squeeze some more performance out of.
The setup is relatively simple: there is a central queue table in
postgres. Worker daemons do a bounded, ordered, limited SELECT to
grab a row, which
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:02:22AM +1100, Chris wrote:
- David Kerr wrote:
- On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:43:16AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
- - David Kerr wrote:
- No.
-
- This is explained in the notes here:
-
- http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-prepare.html
sigh and i've read
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Jay Manni jma...@fireeye.com wrote:
Hi:
I have an application wherein a process needs to read data from a stream and
store the records for further analysis and reporting. The data in the stream
is in the form of variable length records with clearly defined
could be several 1000 records a second.
So, are there periods when there are no/few records coming in? Do the
records/data/files really need to be persisted?
The following statement makes me think you should go the flat file route:
The advantage of running complex queries to mine the data
I wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But the particular example shown here doesn't make a very good case
for that, because it's hard to tell how much of a penalty would be
taken in more realistic examples.
Fair enough. We're in the early stages of moving to tsearch2 and I
Brian Karlak zen...@metaweb.com writes:
My question is this: is there some way that I can keep a cursor /
pointer / reference / whatever to the row I fetched originally, so
that I don't have to search for it again when I'm ready to write
results?
If you don't expect any updates to the
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Grant Masan grant.mas...@gmail.com wrote:
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.0030
cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0010
cpu_operator_cost = 0.0005
Why did you make these adjustments? I
22 matches
Mail list logo
