Thanks Michael and Jaime. The pg/sh thing is probably what I was
looking for.
Tnx
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 04:55:56PM +0100, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Is it possible to run a shell script, passing values of fields to it, in
a Postgres function ?
Not directly from
Hi,
Is it possible to run a shell script, passing values of fields to it, in
a Postgres function ?
Yves Vindevogel
begin:vcard
fn:Yves Vindevogel
n:Vindevogel;Yves
org:Implements
adr:;;Kempische Steenweg 206;Hasselt;;3500;Belgium
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;work:+32 (11) 43 55 76
8.1, hmm, that's brand new.
But, still, it's quite some coding for a complete recordset, not ?
On 22 Nov 2005, at 19:59, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:29:37PM +0100, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Is there another way in PG to return a recordset from a function than
to decl
tof RECORD ...
then to call it you would do
select * from abc() as (a text,b int,...);
-- Original Message ---
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:29:37 +0100
Subject: [PERFORM] Stored Procedure
Is there a
Is there another way in PG to return a recordset from a function than to declare a type first ?
create function fnTest () returns setof myDefinedTypeIDontWantToDefineFirst ...
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile
mance reasons. (More memory, more wal buffers).
There are 2 databases. One got the error yesterday, I dropped it (was brand new), recreated it and the error was gone.
Now the error is there again on another database.
Personally, I think it's a HD error.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kin
10-20% of the records.
The system has 1 gig of ram. I could give 512Mb to PG.
Filesystem is ext2, with the -noatime parameter in fstab
Could I get some suggestions in how to configure my buffers, wals, ?
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Ma
new records, I have no trouble with the MVCC
On 21 Aug 2005, at 21:06, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:32 +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
__
Hi,
Say I have a table with column A, B, C, D
A has a unique index on it
d know how the inside mechanics work.
Tnx
On 21 Aug 2005, at 21:06, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:32 +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
__
Hi,
Say I have a table with column A, B, C, D
A has a unique index on i
some kind of mechanism that does create a sort of new record, thus makes the indexes go wild.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43
I will use 2 queries. They run within a function fnUpload(), so I'm going to keep it simple.
On 19 Jul 2005, at 12:51, Richard Huxton wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
>>> So, I must use a function that will check against u1 and u2, and then
insert if it is ok.
I know that such a f
BTW: thank you for the idea
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue 19 Jul 2005 12:20:34 CEST
To: Richard Huxton
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Insert performance (OT?)
On 19 Jul 2005, at 11:39, Richard Huxton wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hi,
Suppose I
nobody ?
On 18 Jul 2005, at 21:29, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hi,
Suppose I have a table with 4 fields (f1, f2, f3, f4)
I define 2 unique indexes u1 (f1, f2, f3) and u2 (f1, f2, f4)
I have 3 records
A, B, C, D (this will be inserted)
A, B, C, E (this will pass u2, but not u1, thus not inserted)
A
query.
So, my question ...
How can I keep the same performance, but also with the new index in mind ???
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11
mance, the diskspace and other related things,
when we have database of for instance 10 million records or 100 million records.
Is there any math to be done on that ?
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80
On 24 Jun 2005, at 22:19, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hmm, I can't do this, i'm afraid. Or it would be rather difficult
My query is executed through a webpage (link to the page in a navigation bar)
I do not know how many records there are (data is changing, and currently is 600k records)
T
using Cocoon for the website, this is not such a problematic decision, disks are cheap and I need only a few modifications to my code.
On 24 Jun 2005, at 21:22, John A Meinel wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hi again all,
My queries are now optimised. They all use the indexes like they should.
Ho
ert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
On 6/24/05, Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, when I want the last page, which is: 600k / 25 = page 24000 - 1 =
23999, I issue the offset of 23999 * 25
improving this is hard, but not impossible.
if you have right index created, try to reverse the
h is: 600k / 25 = page 24000 - 1 = 23999, I issue the offset of 23999 * 25
This take a long time to run, about 5-10 seconds whereas offset below 100 take less than a second.
Can I speed this up ?
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [
Ok, tnx !!
On 21 Jun 2005, at 18:54, John A Meinel wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
I only add records, and most of the values are "random"
Except the columns for dates,
I doubt that you would need to recreate indexes. That really only needs
to be done in pathological cases, mos
I only add records, and most of the values are "random"
Except the columns for dates,
On 21 Jun 2005, at 17:49, John A Meinel wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
And, after let's say a week, would that index still be optimal or
would it be a good idea to drop it in the weekend
And, after let's say a week, would that index still be optimal or would it be a good idea to drop it in the weekend and recreate it.
On 21 Jun 2005, at 17:22, John A Meinel wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hi,
I have another question regarding indexes.
I have a table with a lot of indexes
my indexes and recreating them after the inserts
2) Just inserting it and have PG manage the indexes
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11
tal runtime: 271583.422 ms
(4 rows)
On 21 Jun 2005, at 16:42, John A Meinel wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Hi,
I have a very simple query on a big table. When I issue a "limit" and/or "offset" clause, the query is not using the index.
Can anyone explain me this ?
You didn&#x
Nevermind guys
There's an error in a function that is creating these indexes.
The function never completed succesfully so the index is not there
Very sorry about this !!
On 21 Jun 2005, at 16:57, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
These are my indexes
create index ixprintjobsapplicationty
ixPrintjobsLoginDescEventdateDesceventtime on tblPrintjobs (loginuser, desceventdate, desceventtime) ;
On 21 Jun 2005, at 16:42, Tom Lane wrote:
Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can anyone explain me this ?
rvponp=# explain select * from tblprintjobs order by loginuser,
desceve
Sort (cost=349860.56..351416.15 rows=622236 width=206)
Sort Key: loginuser, desceventdate, desceventtime
-> Seq Scan on tblprintjobs (cost=0.00..25589.36 rows=622236 width=206)
(3 rows)
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTE
cc ...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat 18 Jun 2005 18:18:53 CEST
To: PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster
There's a basic difference between striping (raid 0) and mirroring (raid 1)
Wi
BTW, tnx for the opinion ...
I forgot to cc list ...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri 17 Jun 2005 23:29:32 CEST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster
Ok, striping is a good option ...
I'll tel
Ok, I will hate that day, but it's only 6 months
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri 17 Jun 2005 23:26:43 CEST
To: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster
On Jun 17, 2005, at 5:24 PM
?
First concern is performance, not redundancy (we can do that a different way because all data comes from upload files)
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel
just want to update a single field in one table with a simple value (negative value of another field)
That can not be that hard ...
Or is it the MVCC that is responsible for this ?
It can't be indexes on other tables, right ?
That would be absolutely sick
On 13 Jun 2005, at 18:45, Yves V
Ok, if all 21 are affected, I can understand the problem.
But allow me to say that this is a "functional error"
On 13 Jun 2005, at 18:02, Richard Huxton wrote:
Yves Vindevogel wrote:
I forgot cc
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon 13 J
I forgot cc
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon 13 Jun 2005 17:45:19 CEST
To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Updates on large tables are extremely slow
Yes, but if I update one column, why should PG update 21 indexes ?
elete.
On 13 Jun 2005, at 13:51, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
I have started this on my testmachine at 11h20. It's still running and here it's 13h40.
Setup:
Intel P4 2Ghz, 1 Gb ram
ReiserFS 3 (with atime in fstab, which is not optimal)
Slackware 10
PG 7.4
I have the same problems on my OSX
icrosoft Access is faster !!
On 13 Jun 2005, at 11:02, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
rvponp=# vacuum verbose tblPrintjobs ;
INFO: vacuuming "public.tblprintjobs"
INFO: index "pkprintjobs" now contains 622972 row versions in 8410 pages
DETAIL: 9526 index row versions were removed.
.00 sec.
INFO: "pg_toast_2169880": found 0 removable, 0 nonremovable row versions in 0 pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There were 0 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
VACUUM
rvponp=#
On 13 Jun 2005, at 10:
dth=697)
(1 row)
With the function, it still is very slow. I can't see anything in the explain here, but it seems to be using a table scan.
On 13 Jun 2005, at 09:18, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
rvponp=# explain selec
lPrintjobs
order by descpages, documentname ;
On 13 Jun 2005, at 09:05, Russell Smith wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:54 pm, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
Still, when I use explain, pg says it will first sort my tables instead
of using my index
How is that possible ?
Can we see the output of the
from tbl order by x, y, it works like I want it to work
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
<>
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76
Web: http://www.impleme
My testsystem is an Asus portable, P4 with 1 Gig of RAM.
Disk is speedy. All runs fine except for the update queries.
I would appreciate some help or a document to point me to the settings I must change.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
<&g
Hi,
Does it make a difference in performance and/or disc space if I
1) drop index / vacuumdb -zf / create index
or
2) drop index / create index / vacuumdb -zf
I guess it makes a diff for the --analyze, not ?
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
riginal in DESC, it works.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Bien à vous,
Kind regards,
Yves Vindevogel
Implements
<>
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91
Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76
Web: http://www.implements.be
First they ignore you. Th
I tried that, but
create index ixTest on table1 (pages desc, documentname)
gives me a syntax error
On 23 May 2005, at 20:03, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:41:19PM +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
However, when I query my db using for instance order by pages
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon 23 May 2005 19:23:16 CEST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Index on table when using DESC clause
Hi,
I have a table with multiple fields. Two of them are documentname and pages
I have indexes on documentname
45 matches
Mail list logo
