RE: [GENERAL] Benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | soundar rajan |
---|---|
Subject | RE: [GENERAL] Benchmarks |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20000107151324.27698.qmail@web2103.mail.yahoo.com Whole thread Raw |
List | pgsql-general |
Can anyone hellp me out in creating a simple function and a trigger ? When I create a function which returns opaque, I get an error stating 'sql function cannot return opaque'. When I create a function which returns either int or varchar, I could create it, but, on invoking the function while creating the trigger, I get an error message stating the 'xxx' function must return opaque. I get into a cycle of errors. Any help to get out of the cycle (if possible with a small example code ?). Thanks in advance. --- Michael J Davis <michael.j.davis@tvguide.com> wrote: > Maybe vacuum should be changed to automatically drop > all indexes, vacuum, > and re-create all indexes and stop trying to rebuild > each index. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Culberson, Philip > [SMTP:philip.culberson@dat.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 1:58 PM > > To: 'Bruce Momjian'; Dustin Sallings > > Cc: The Hermit Hacker; pgsql-general@hub.org > > Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Benchmarks > > > > In his very insightful post last week, Mike > Mascari pointed out that, on > > tables with heavy insert/updates, it was much > faster to drop the index, > > vacuum analyze, and then rebuild the index. Maybe > in vacuum there is a > > specific inefficiency in what Mike coined > "defragment"ing indexes. > > > > [Snip] > > > > 8. Not running VACUUM - PostgreSQL won't use > indexes, or won't optimize > > correctly unless the record count and dispersion > estimates are up-to-date. > > People have reported problems with running vacuum > while under heavy load. > > We > > haven't seen it, but we run vacuum each night at > 4:05 a.m. However, if you > > perform a LARGE number of INSERTS/UPDATES, it is > better for you to do the > > following: > > > > DROP INDEX index_on_heavilty_used_table; > > VACUUM ANALYZE; > > CREATE INDEX index_on_heavily_used_table; > > > > Because VACUUM will sit there, and, row by row, > essentially "defragment" > > your indexes, which can take damn near forever for > any number of updates > > or > > deletes greater than, say, 30,000 rows. > > > > [Snip] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Momjian > [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] > > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 10:14 AM > > To: Dustin Sallings > > Cc: The Hermit Hacker; pgsql-general@hub.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks > > > > > > > Untrue, vacuum is *extremely* important for > updating statistics. > > > If you have a lot of data in a table, and you > have never vacuumed, you > > > might as well not have any indices. It'd be > nice if you could seperate > > > the stat update from the storage reclaim. > Actually, it'd be nice if you > > > could reuse storage, so that an actual vacuum > wouldn't be necessary > > unless > > > you just wanted to free up disk space you might > end up using again > > anyway. > > > > > > The vacuum also doesn't seem to be very > efficient. In one of my > > > databases, a vacuum could take in excess of 24 > hours, while I've written > > a > > > small SQL script that does a select rename and a > insert into select from > > > that will do the same job in about ten minutes. > This is a database that > > > cannot lock for more than a few minutes. > > > > This is serious. Why would an INSERT / RENAME be > so much faster. Are > > we that bad with VACUUM? > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | > http://www.op.net/~candle > > maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) > 853-3000 > > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 > Blythe Avenue > > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel > Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > > > > ************ > > > > ************ > > ************ > ===== Thanks. Soundar. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
pgsql-general by date: