On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
select count(*), sum(vl_ex_stax) , sum(qty) , unit from inv_detail group by unit;
on both databases.
PostgreSQL Machine
**
P-III 600Mhz (Dell Precision 220)
256 MB Ram (RD Ram)
40 GB Baracuda Ext2 File System.
RedHat 7.2
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right now, it is hotly debated on HACKERS about adding a NOWAIT
clause to SELECT FOR UPDATE. If you think your application
deployment is away for months and can try CVS head, you can expect
some action on it in coming few days.
You can also try
Hi,
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a
lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3
sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I still have to go for 2 sec result and now
On Thursday 19 February 2004 14:31, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
Hi,
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh
9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the
query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 (
rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris.
Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1
process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I'm glad we could help you Saleem :)
We knew
Saleem Burhani Baloch kirjutas N, 19.02.2004 kell 11:01:
Hi,
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on
redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration
sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking
that why the 7.1 process
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
---(end of
Saleem Burhani Baloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question why MS-SQL with 256 MB RAM gives result in 2 sec ?? If I have low
memory Postgres should give result in 10 sec as compared to MS-SQL.
Are you still running 7.1?
regards, tom lane
Easy two step procedure for speeding this up:
1: Upgrade to 7.4.1
2: Read this:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
I just tested it
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1- How can I lock a single record so that other users can only read
it. ??
You cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
I just tested it
How about SELECT ... FOR UPDATE?
No, because users cannot read the locked row in that case.
I just tested it (within transactions) and it appeared that I could still
view the rows selected for update.
Ah, true. My mistake. OK, well you can do it in postgres then...
Chris
Saleem Burhani Baloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PostgreSQL 7.1.3-2
Aside from the config issues Chris mentioned, I'd recommend trying
a somewhat less obsolete version of Postgres. I believe the poor
performance with grouped aggregates should be fixed in 7.4 and later.
(Red Hat 7.2 is a bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
