Re: [PERFORM] CPU load
Hello Maja, EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT * FROM system_alarm WHERE id_camera='3' AND confirmed='false' AND dismissed='false' ORDER BY date DESC, time DESC LIMIT 1; (the table is indexed by id_camera, has around 1 milion rows, and this query returns around 70 rows and is executed (EXPLAIN ANALYSE) in around 4800 ms, and this table is queried a lot although not so often queried modified) 700.000 of 1.000.000 rows is around 70% ... that are nearly all rows. As much as I read you, this table is not often modified. What reason is there for quering all that data again and again instead of keeping it in memory (should it be really needed) ? Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - EuroPython 2009 will take place in Birmingham - Stay tuned! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] CPU bound at 99%
Bryan, about 2300 connections in idle (ps auxwww | grep postgres | idle) that is about 2300 processes being task scheduled by your kernel, each of them using 1 MB of RAM and some other ressources, are you sure that this is what you want? Usual recommended design for a web application: start request, rent a connection from connection pool, do query, put connection back, finish request, wait for next request so to get 500 connections in parallel, you would have the outside situaion of 500 browsers submitting requests within the time needed to fullfill one request. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] what is the maximum number of rows in a table in postgresql 8.1
Sathiya, th maximum number of records in one PostreSQL table ist unlimited: http://www.postgresql.org/about/ [for some values of unlimited] Some further help: googling for: postgresql limits site:postgresql.org leads you to this answer quite quick, while googling for maximum number of rows in a postgresql table leads you to a lot of misleading pages. Harald On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, sathiya psql [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, finally am changing my question. Do get quick response from postgresql what is the maximum number of records i can have in a table in postgresql 8.1 ??? -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] viewing source code
wrapping pl/pgsql with encryptor/decryptor It's quite a good idea, because it has more than zero chance of succeeding politically in the community. It's additionally a good idea because the other big database is using the same approach. Easier sell to phb. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned!
[PERFORM] URI to kind of a benchmark
reading postgres benchmarks for beginners advises to stop reading on the words default (ie. unchanged postgresql.conf); but the real test is given right after: http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-guid.html That confirmes my first impression (on different workload) of the speed has doubled. If reality confirmes, that 8.2 to 8.3 will be a small step in versions, and a great step in databases. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned!
Re: [PERFORM] Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM
Scott, Well, there've been a lot of issues with anti-virus and postgresql not getting along. I wonder if pgsql takes out a stronger lock, and when it can't get it then the failure happens. Not familiar enough with windows to do more than speculate. without touching the file-concurrency issues caused by virus scanners: a LOT of the Postgres - VirusScanner problems on Windows were caused during the postgres spawns a new process and communicates with that process via ipstack Many Virus Scanners seam to have dealt with the TCP/IP stack in a not compatible manner... Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned!
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL Configuration Tool for Dummies
Magnus, don't bother reporting a bug unless you're on the latest in a branch, and at least make sure you're on one of the maojr releases listed on www.postgresql.org? Seems reasonable? absolutely. Should be standard practice. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2007 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania from Monday 9th July to Wednesday 11th July. See you there!
Re: [PERFORM] Data transfer very slow when connected via DSL
Rainer, I did not find a solution so far; and for bulk data transfers I now programmed a workaround. But that is surely based on some component installed on the server, isn't it? Correct. I use a pyro-remote server. On request this remote server copies the relevant rows into a temporary table, uses a copy_to Call to push them into a StringIO-Objekt (that's Pythons version of In Memory File), serializes that StringIO-Objekt, does a bz2-compression and transfers the whole block via VPN. I read on in this thread, and I scheduled to check on psycopg2 and what it is doing with cursors. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2007 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania from Monday 9th July to Wednesday 11th July. See you there!
Re: [PERFORM] Data transfer very slow when connected via DSL
PFC, Correct. I use a pyro-remote server. On request this remote server copies the relevant rows into a temporary table, uses a copy_to Call to push them into a StringIO-Objekt (that's Pythons version of In Memory File), serializes that StringIO-Objekt, does a bz2-compression and transfers the whole block via VPN. What about a SSH tunnel using data compression ? Setup on multiple Windows Workstations in multiple Installations is not possible. If you fetch all rows from a query in one go, would it be fast ? I tried the same copy_to via VPN. It took 10-50x the time it took locally. Also, PG can now COPY from a query, so you don't really need the temp table... I know, but was stuck to 8.1 on some servers. Best wishes, Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2007 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania from Monday 9th July to Wednesday 11th July. See you there!
Re: [PERFORM] Data transfer very slow when connected via DSL
Hello Rainer, The database computer is connected via a 2MBit SDL connection. I myself have a 768/128 KBit ADSL connection and pinging the server takes 150ms on average. I do not have a solution, but I can confirm the problem :) One PostgreSQL-Installation: Server 8.1 and 8.2 on Windows in the central; various others connected via VPN. Queries are subsecond when run locally (including data transfer), and up to 10 seconds and more via VPN, even in off-hours The data-transfer is done via PG-Admin or via psycopg2 Python-Database adapter; nothing with ODBC or similiar in between. I did not find a solution so far; and for bulk data transfers I now programmed a workaround. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2007 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania from Monday 9th July to Wednesday 11th July. See you there!
Re: [PERFORM] Kernel cache vs shared_buffers
A common rule of thumb people quote here is to set shared_buffers to 1/4 of available RAM, and leave the rest for OS cache. That's probably a good configuration to start with. And just for the record: This rule of thumb does NOT apply to PostgreSQL on Windows. My current rule of thumb on Windows: set shared_buffers to minimum * 2 Adjust effective_cache_size to the number given as system cache within the task manager. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PERFORM] Kernel cache vs shared_buffers
Heikki, PostgreSQL on Windows. My current rule of thumb on Windows: set shared_buffers to minimum * 2 Adjust effective_cache_size to the number given as system cache within the task manager. Why? I tried with shared_buffers = 50% of available memory, and with 30% of available memory, and the thoughput on complex queries stalled or got worse. I lowered shared_buffers to minimum, and started raising effective_cache_size, and performance on real world queries improved. pg_bench did not fully agree when simulating large numbers concurrent queries. So I tried setting shared_buffers between minimum and 2.5*minimum, and pg_bench speeds recovered and real world queries did similiar. My understanding is that shared_buffers are realised as memory mapped file in win32; and that they are only usually kept in memory. Maybe I understood that wrong. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PERFORM] Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Carlos, about your feature proposal: as I learned, nearly all Perfomance.Configuration can be done by editing the .INI file and making the Postmaster re-read it. So, WHY at all should those parameters be guessed at the installation of the database? Would'nt it be a saver point of time to have some postgresql-tune utilitiy, which gets run after the installation, maybe every once in a while. That tool can check vital information like Databasesize to memory relation; and suggest a new postgresql.ini. That tool needs NO INTEGRATION whatsoever - it can be developed, deployed totally independend and later only be bundled. Does my suggestion make more sense now? Or is it still too unrealistic to make it work properly/safely? And as this tool can be tested seperately, does not need a new initdb every time ... it can be developed more easily. Maybe there is even a pointy flashy version possible (perhaps even for money :) which gives nice graphics and optimized, like those Windows Optimizers. :) I am sure, some DBAs in BIGCOMPs would be thrilled :) May that be a possible way? Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Jonah, Um, shared_buffers is one of the most important initial parameters to set and it most certainly cannot be set after startup. Not after startup, correct. But after installation. It is possible to change PostgreSQL.conf (not ini, to much windows on my side, sorry) and restart postmaster. Because a lot of good assumptions can be made on the initial install. Likewise, some of the most important parameters cannot be tuned after startup. Yes. These assumptions can be made - but then they are assumptions. When the database is filled and working, there are measurable facts. And yes, that needs a restart of postmaster, that does not work on 24/7. But there are many databases which can be restartet for tuning in regular maintainance sessions. :) which gives nice graphics and optimized, like those Windows Optimizers. :) I am sure, some DBAs in BIGCOMPs would be thrilled :) I'd suggest that you not make snide remarks about someone else's design when your own analysis is somewhat flawed. Sorry, Jonah, if my words sounded snide. I had feedback from some DBAs in BIGCOMPs, who said very positive things about the beauty of pgadmin. I saw some DBAs quite happy about the graphical displays of TOAD. I worked for a MVS Hoster who paid BIG SUMS to Candle Software for a Software called Omegamon, which made it possible to have charts about performance figures. So I deducted that people would even be willing to pay money for a GUI which presents the opimizing process. That idea of tune PostgreSQL database after installation also came from the various request on pgsql-performance. Some ask before they install; but there are also MANY questions with our PostgreSQL database was running fast untill , with usually being a table grown bigger then n records. And I really did not want to discredit the idea of properly configuring from the start. Just wanted to open an other option to do that tuning. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL in virtual machine
Andreas, I am responsible for some active PostgreSQL databases within virtual machines and on plain metal; all using Windows. There are spurious strange performance issues on those PostreSQL databases within the virtual machines. I can not pin them down (yet), and am not really able to blame them on vmware; but just want to recommend to be very very carefull about PostgreSQL in vmware and please communcate your findings. from a PostgreSQL 8.1 database in a virtual machine. I'm able to adjust the memory of this machine according to reasonable values and can choose between one or two (emulated) processors. The question is: How can I find an optimal relation between the virtual hardware parameters and PostgreSQL performance. I guess You did not specify the OS in your VM. I can report my experiences with W2k3 inside the VM: contrary to usual recommendations, smaller shared_buffers yielded better results. Growing effective_cache_size yielded the best results for me. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PERFORM] Tuning
Tuners, allways be aware that results on Windows may be totally different! My main customer is running PostgreSQL 8.1 on MINIMUM shared buffers max_connections = 100# shared_buffers = 200# min 16 or max_connections*2, 8KB each I changed it to this value from the very low default 2, and the system is responding better; especially after fixing the available memory setting within the planner. ... frustrating part is, I could not replicate this behavious with pg_bench :( Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] pgBench on Windows
Does the one that ships in the installer not work?//Magnusit does work.*putting ashes on my head*Googled around and only found pgbench.c; never looked in program directory. Sorry, my mistake. Harald-- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmareHarald Armin MassaReinsburgstraße 202b70197 Stuttgart0173/9409607-Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Mark, And THAT is exactly the challenge of this thread: I am searching for tools to check shared memory usage on Windows. ipcs is not available. And neither Magnus nor Dave, both main contributors of the win32 port of PostgreSQL, and both way wiser concerning Windows internas then me, know of some :(Would it help to have the postmaster report what the shared memory allocation is when it starts up? (this won't help with the activitystuff, but at least you would know for sure how *much* you have to use).That would be of no use ... I am quite sure that PostgreSQL allocates the memory as specified; that is: as much as is written in postgresql.conf. The interesting part is usage of shared memory through the workload. Harald-- GHUM Harald Massapersuadere et programmareHarald Armin MassaReinsburgstraße 202b70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607-Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Performance readers I follow up my promise:I try my theories :)) and contrary to all wisdom from all PostgreSQL tuning recommendations reconfigured shared memory nearly to theminimum: 1000 for maximum of 400 concurrent connections. (800 would beminimum). Single user performance was fine, now I am looking forwardto full user scenario tomorrow. I will keep you posted.HaraldI went even further down,max_connections = 200 # shared_buffers = 400 # min 16 or max_connections*2, 8KB eachto the minimum allowed value of shared_buffers. And the response times are better then ever before (with 10.000, 20.000, 5.000 and 40.000 shared_buffers):An application-level response dropped from 16 / 9.5 seconds (first run / cached run) to 12 / 6.5 average runtime. That response time is mainly dependend on SQL performance, and esp. the drop is caused by this change. Moreover, the columns swapped out memory in task manager stay low at ~26k per postgres.exe, compared to ~106k as my shared_buffers where at 10.000.The memory column of postgres.exe in task manager process still grows up to 10.000K, while now virtual memory stays ~3.600k per processSo: in this configuration / workload: - windows 2k3- small (~0,4GB) Database- rather complex queries- ~1 GB memory - running in virtual machineand - windows xp - small (~0,4GB) Database - ~0,5 GB memory - rather complex queries- running native (laptops)I could verify a substantial speed gain in single and many user situations by lowering shared_buffers to the allowed minimum. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massapersuadere et programmareHarald Armin MassaReinsburgstraße 202b70197 Stuttgart0173/9409607-Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
[PERFORM] pgBench on Windows
Hello Performancers,has anyone a pgBench tool running on Windows?I want to experiment with various settings to tune; and would prefer using something ready made before coming up with my own misstakes. Harald-- GHUM Harald Massapersuadere et programmareHarald Armin MassaReinsburgstraße 202b70197 Stuttgart0173/9409607-Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
[PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Hello, Shridhar Daithankar and Josh Berkus write on http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html shared_memory There is one way to decide what is best for you. Set a high value of this parameter and run the database for typical usage. Watch usage of shared memory using ipcs or similar tools. A recommended figure would be between 1.2 to 2 times peak shared memory usage. I tried to find a way to do this on windows. Scanning all the lines of perfmon memory options, I could not see anithing like shared memory usage. Googling for shared memory usage just drove me to some ancient WRONG information that PostgreSQL is not possible on Windows because of lacking shared memory. (guess that was for Windows 95 or similiar) So: has anybody a hint how I can check how much shared_memory is really used by PostgreSQL on Windows, to fine tune this parameter? I learned the hard way that just rising it can lead to a hard performance loss :) Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Magnus, So: has anybody a hint how I can check how much shared_memory is really used by PostgreSQL on Windows, to fine tune this parameter? I learned the hard way that just rising it can lead to a hard performance loss :)Not really sure :) We're talking about anonymous mapped memory, and Idon't think perfmon lets you look at that. thanks for the clarification. However,anonymous mapped memory site:microsoft.comturns out 0 (zero) results. And even splitting it up there seems to be nearly no information ... is the same thing by any chance also known by different names? However, there is no limit to it as there often is on Unix - you can map up to whatever the virtual RAM size is (2Gb/3Gb dependingo n what boot flag you use, IIRC). You can monitor it as a part of the total memory useage on the server, but there's no way to automatically show the difference between them.So the performance shock with high shared memory gets obvious: memory mapped files get swapped to disk. I assume that swapping is nearly transparent for the application, leading to a nice trashing ... I'll keep on searching...Harald-- GHUM Harald Massapersuadere et programmareHarald Armin MassaReinsburgstraße 202b70197 Stuttgart0173/9409607-Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
Re: [PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Magnus, anonymous mapped memory site:microsoft.com turns out 0 (zero) results. And even splitting it up there seems to be nearly no information ... is the same thing by any chance also known by different names? Hmm. Yeah, most likely :) I may have grabbed that name from something else. THe documentation for the call is on http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms685007(VS.80).aspx, we specify INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE for hFile, which means: [...] CreateFileMapping creates a file mapping object of a specified size that _the operating system paging file backs_ [...] I assume that DWORD dwMaximumSizeHigh and DWORD dwMaximumSizeLow get filled with whatever I configure in shared_memory? My reading of that function gives me the impression, that this kind of shared *memory* is essentially a shared disk file - _the operating system paging file backs_ Especially documentation lines like If an application specifies a size for the file mapping object that is larger than the size of the actual named file on disk, the file on disk is increased to match the specified size of the file mapping object. really makes me think that that area is just a comfortable way to access files on disk as memory areas; with the hope of propably better caching then not-memory-mapped files. That would explain my disturbing impressions of performance of PostgreSQL on win32 rising when lowering shared_memory... Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
[PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
David, For example, if you have 1G of RAM on the box, you can't configure a cache of 900 meg and expect things to work well. This is because the OS and associated other stuff running on the box will use ~300megs. The system will page as a result. Overcommitting of memory leads to trashing, yes, that is also my experience. The only sure fire way I know of to find the absolute maximum cache size that can be safely configured is to experiment with larger and larger sizes until paging occurs, then back off a bit. Yeah, I know the trial and error method. But I also learned that reading the manuals and documentation often helps. So after fastreading the various PostgreSQL tuning materials, I came accross formulas to calculate a fine starting point for shared memory size; and the recommendation to check with shared_memory information tools if that size is okay. And THAT is exactly the challenge of this thread: I am searching for tools to check shared memory usage on Windows. ipcs is not available. And neither Magnus nor Dave, both main contributors of the win32 port of PostgreSQL, and both way wiser concerning Windows internas then me, know of some :( The challenge below that: I maintain a win32 PostgreSQL server, which gets slow every 3-4 weeks. After restarting it runs perfect, for again 3-4 weeks. The Oracle-guys at the same customer solved a similiar problem by simply restarting Oracle every night. But that would be not good enough for my sence of honour :) Thanks for your thoughts, Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PERFORM] measuring shared memory usage on Windows
Magnus, That shows that you don't really know how the memory manager in NT+ works ;-) *ALL* normal file I/O is handled through the memory manager :-) So yes, they are both different access methods to the memory manager, really. don't really is a overstatement, I do not know at all how the memory manager works in NT+. All I learned is Inside Windows NT of H. Custer from 1993 :) So, just to make sure I understood correctly: If PostgreSQL reads a file from disk, Windows NT does this file I/O though the same memory manager than when PostgreSQL puts parts of this read file [for example an index segment] into shared memory - which is nothing but a file, that usually stays in main memory. Correct so far? I continued from this thoughts: lets say there is 500MB memory available, we have 100MB of shared_memory configured. Now PostgreSQL reads 100MB from a file - memory manager takes 100MB memory to fullfill this file access (optimizations aside) Now PostgreSQL reshuffles that 100MB and decides: h, that may be valuable for ALL of the currently running postgres.exe and pushes those 100MB into shared memory for all to use. It caches the 100MB - a fine chunk of an index. From this kind of understanding, memory manager has 200MB in use: the 100MB from the file read, and the 100MB of shared memory. Of course the 100MB of the file in memory manager will get flushed soon. Now, lets restrict PostgreSQL: I only give the minimum amout of shared memory. It will NOT cache those 100MB in shared memory. But: PostgreSQL really was correct. The other 20 postgres.exe access the same file on a regular basis. Won't memory manager keep that file cached in RAM anyway? I try my theories :)) and contrary to all wisdom from all PostgreSQL tuning recommendations reconfigured shared memory nearly to the minimum: 1000 for maximum of 400 concurrent connections. (800 would be minimum). Single user performance was fine, now I am looking forward to full user scenario tomorrow. I will keep you posted. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
