Thread

1. Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed

   Carsten Huettl <chuettl@ahorn.sgh.uunet.de> — 1999-10-15T05:21:11Z

    Hello,
   
   > Did you add your pg libraries path into /etc/ld.so.conf  
   > (/usr/local/postgres/libs is mine) and run ldconfig?
   
   I searched the whole tree from / for ld.so.conf but did not find one.
   
   C.
    
   
   -- 
   Carsten Huettl - <http://www.ahorn-Net.de>
   pgp-key on request
   
   

2. Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed

   Sascha Schumann <sascha@schumann.cx> — 1999-10-15T11:10:52Z

   On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 06:21:11AM +0100, Carsten Huettl wrote:
   >  Hello,
   > 
   > > Did you add your pg libraries path into /etc/ld.so.conf  
   > > (/usr/local/postgres/libs is mine) and run ldconfig?
   > 
   > I searched the whole tree from / for ld.so.conf but did not find one.
   
       Add the path in /etc/rc.conf to ldconfig_paths. Then reboot.
   
   -- 
   
             Regards,
   
                               Sascha Schumann
                                    Consultant
   
   

3. Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed

   Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> — 1999-10-15T13:59:09Z

   > > Did you add your pg libraries path into /etc/ld.so.conf  
   > > (/usr/local/postgres/libs is mine) and run ldconfig?
   > 
   > I searched the whole tree from / for ld.so.conf but did not find one.
   
   freebsd doesn't really use one.
   
   you can manually add the path with "ldconfig -R /path"
   
   you can make the change permanent by adding the path to the ldconfig parameter
   int /etc/rc.conf.
   
   alternately, you can include the ldconfig -R command in your
   /usr/local/etc/rc.d/pgsql.sh script, if you have one.
   
   -- 
   [ Jim Mercer    Reptilian Research      jim@reptiles.org   +1 416 410-5633 ]
   [ The telephone, for those of you who  have forgotten, was a commonly used ]
   [ communications technology in the days before electronic mail.            ]
   [ They're still easy to find in most large cities. -- Nathaniel Borenstein ]
   
   

4. Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed

   Carsten Huettl <chuettl@ahorn.sgh.uunet.de> — 1999-10-19T23:01:24Z

   From:           	jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer)
   Subject:        	Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed
   To:             	CHUETTL@ahorn.sgh.uunet.de (Carsten Huettl)
   Date sent:      	Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:59:09 -0400 (EDT)
   Copies to:      	hitesh@presys.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
   
   > you can make the change permanent by adding the path to the ldconfig
   > parameter int /etc/rc.conf.
   > 
   How do I make this permanent if I need the "-aout" option with 
   ldconfig ?
   
   C.
   
   
   -- 
   Carsten Huettl - <http://www.ahorn-Net.de>
   pgp-key on request
   
   

5. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

   Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh@mecomb.com> — 1999-10-20T04:25:50Z

   Hi everyone,
   
   Should inserts be so slow?
   
   I've written a perl script to insert 10 million records for testing
   purposes and it looks like it's going to take a LONG time with postgres.
   MySQL is about 150 times faster! I don't have any indexes on either. I am
   using the DBI and relevant DBD for both.
   
   For Postgres 6.5.2 it's slow with either of the following table structures.
   create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name text,
   address text );
   create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name
   varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   
   For MySQL I used:
   create table central (counter int not null auto_increment primary key,
   number varchar(12), name varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   
   The relevant perl portion is (same for both):
   		$SQL=<<"EOT";
   insert into central (number,name,address) values (?,?,?)
   EOT
   		$cursor=$dbh->prepare($SQL);
   
   	while ($c<10000000) {
   		$number=$c;
   		$name="John Doe the number ".$c;
   		$address="$c, Jalan SS$c/$c, Petaling Jaya";
   		$rv=$cursor->execute($number,$name,$address) or die("Error executing
   insert!",$DBI::errstr);
   		if ($rv==0) {
   			die("Error inserting a record with database!",$DBI::errstr);
   		};
   		$c++;
   		$d++;
   		if ($d>1000) {
   			print "$c\n";
   			$d=1;
   		}
   	}
   
   
   
   

6. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

   Charles Tassell <ctassell@isn.net> — 1999-10-20T05:56:56Z

   Try turning off Autocommit: MySQL doesn't support transactions, so that
   might be what's causing the speed boost.   Just change the connect line from:
   $pg_con=DBI->connect("DBI:Pg:....
   to
   $pg_con=DBI->connect("DBI:Pg(AutoCommit=>0):....
   
   and add 
   
   $pg_con->commit
   
   before you disconnect.  I may have the syntax wrong, so double check the
   docs for the DBI and PG modules (perldoc DBD::Pg and perldoc DBI)
   
   At 01:25 AM 10/20/99, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
   >Hi everyone,
   >
   >Should inserts be so slow?
   >
   >I've written a perl script to insert 10 million records for testing
   >purposes and it looks like it's going to take a LONG time with postgres.
   >MySQL is about 150 times faster! I don't have any indexes on either. I am
   >using the DBI and relevant DBD for both.
   >
   >For Postgres 6.5.2 it's slow with either of the following table structures.
   >create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name text,
   >address text );
   >create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name
   >varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   >
   >For MySQL I used:
   >create table central (counter int not null auto_increment primary key,
   >number varchar(12), name varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   >
   >The relevant perl portion is (same for both):
   >		$SQL=<<"EOT";
   >insert into central (number,name,address) values (?,?,?)
   >EOT
   >		$cursor=$dbh->prepare($SQL);
   >
   >	while ($c<10000000) {
   >		$number=$c;
   >		$name="John Doe the number ".$c;
   >		$address="$c, Jalan SS$c/$c, Petaling Jaya";
   >		$rv=$cursor->execute($number,$name,$address) or die("Error executing
   >insert!",$DBI::errstr);
   >		if ($rv==0) {
   >			die("Error inserting a record with database!",$DBI::errstr);
   >		};
   >		$c++;
   >		$d++;
   >		if ($d>1000) {
   >			print "$c\n";
   >			$d=1;
   >		}
   >	}
   >
   >
   >
   >************
   >
   
   
   

7. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

   Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh@mecomb.com> — 1999-10-20T07:38:12Z

   Thanks.
   
   It's now a lot faster. Now only about 5 or so times slower. Cool.
   
   But it wasn't unexpected that I got the following after a while ;).
   
   NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 990 for joblist/central
                           
   NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991 for joblist/central
   DBD::Pg::st execute failed: NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991
   for joblist/central
   Error executing insert!NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991 for
   joblist/central
   Database handle destroyed without explicit disconnect. 
   
   I don't mind that. I was actually waiting to see what would happen and
   my jaw would have dropped if MVCC could handle Multi Versions with
   10,000,000 records! 
   
   But the trouble is postgres seemed to behave strangely after that error.
   The select count(*) from central took so long that I gave up. I tried drop
   table central, and so far it hasn't dropped yet. Single record selects
   still work tho.
   
   Well next time I'll commit after a few thousand inserts. But still things
   shouldn't lock up like that right? It's only inserted a few more thousand
   records to the 50000 to 60000 records stage, so it's not a big table I'm
   dealing with.
   
   I cancelled the drop, killed postmaster (nicely), restarted it and tried
   vacuuming. Vacuuming found some errors, but now it has got stuck too:
   NOTICE:  Index central_counter_key: pointer to EmptyPage (blk 988 off 52) -
   fixing                  
   NOTICE:  Index central_counter_key: pointer to EmptyPage (blk 988 off 53) -
   fixing
   Then nothing for the past 5 minutes.
                                                
   
   Looks like I may have to manually clean things up with good ol rm. <sigh>.
   Not an urgent problem since this shouldn't happen in production.
   
   By the way, the 999,999th record has been inserted into MySQL already. It's
   pretty good at the rather limited stuff it does. 
   
   But Postgres' MVCC thing sounds real cool. Not as cool as a 10MegaRecord
   MVCC would be tho <grin>.
   
   Must try screwing up Oracle one of these days. I'm pretty good at messing
   things up ;). 
   
   Cheerio,
   
   Link.
   
   At 02:56 AM 20-10-1999 -0300, Charles Tassell wrote:
   >Try turning off Autocommit: MySQL doesn't support transactions, so that
   >might be what's causing the speed boost.   Just change the connect line from:
   >$pg_con=DBI->connect("DBI:Pg:....
   >to
   >$pg_con=DBI->connect("DBI:Pg(AutoCommit=>0):....
   >
   >and add 
   >
   >$pg_con->commit
   >
   >before you disconnect.  I may have the syntax wrong, so double check the
   >docs for the DBI and PG modules (perldoc DBD::Pg and perldoc DBI)
   >
   >At 01:25 AM 10/20/99, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
   >>Hi everyone,
   >>
   >>Should inserts be so slow?
   >>
   >>I've written a perl script to insert 10 million records for testing
   >>purposes and it looks like it's going to take a LONG time with postgres.
   >>MySQL is about 150 times faster! I don't have any indexes on either. I am
   >>using the DBI and relevant DBD for both.
   >>
   >>For Postgres 6.5.2 it's slow with either of the following table structures.
   >>create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name text,
   >>address text );
   >>create table central ( counter serial, number varchar (12), name
   >>varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   >>
   >>For MySQL I used:
   >>create table central (counter int not null auto_increment primary key,
   >>number varchar(12), name varchar(80), address varchar(80));
   >>
   >>The relevant perl portion is (same for both):
   >>		$SQL=<<"EOT";
   >>insert into central (number,name,address) values (?,?,?)
   >>EOT
   >>		$cursor=$dbh->prepare($SQL);
   >>
   >>	while ($c<10000000) {
   >>		$number=$c;
   >>		$name="John Doe the number ".$c;
   >>		$address="$c, Jalan SS$c/$c, Petaling Jaya";
   >>		$rv=$cursor->execute($number,$name,$address) or die("Error executing
   >>insert!",$DBI::errstr);
   >>		if ($rv==0) {
   >>			die("Error inserting a record with database!",$DBI::errstr);
   >>		};
   >>		$c++;
   >>		$d++;
   >>		if ($d>1000) {
   >>			print "$c\n";
   >>			$d=1;
   >>		}
   >>	}
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >>************
   >>
   >
   >
   >
   
   
   

8. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

   Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> — 1999-10-20T08:12:50Z

   Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
   > 
   > It's now a lot faster. Now only about 5 or so times slower. Cool.
   > 
   > But it wasn't unexpected that I got the following after a while ;).
   > 
   > NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 990 for joblist/central
   > 
   > NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991 for joblist/central
   > DBD::Pg::st execute failed: NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991
   > for joblist/central
   > Error executing insert!NOTICE:  BufferAlloc: cannot write block 991 for
   > joblist/central
   > Database handle destroyed without explicit disconnect.
   > 
   > I don't mind that. I was actually waiting to see what would happen and
   > my jaw would have dropped if MVCC could handle Multi Versions with
   > 10,000,000 records!
   
   It doesn't seem as MVCC problem. MVCC uses transaction ids,
   not tuple ones, and so should work with any number of rows
   modified by concurrent transaction... In theory... -:))
   
   Vadim
   
   

9. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

   Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh@mecomb.com> — 1999-10-20T08:33:18Z

   At 04:12 PM 20-10-1999 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
   >It doesn't seem as MVCC problem. MVCC uses transaction ids,
   >not tuple ones, and so should work with any number of rows
   >modified by concurrent transaction... In theory... -:))
   
   OK. Dunno what I hit then. I wasn't modifying rows, I was inserting rows.
   
   How many rows (blocks) can I insert before I have to do a commit?
   
   Well anyway the Postgres inserts aren't so much slower if I only commit
   once in a while. Only about 3 times slower for the first 100,000 records.
   So the subject line is now inaccurate :). Not bad, I like it. 
   
   But to fix the resulting problem I had to manually rm the files related to
   the table. I also dropped the database to make sure ;). That's not good.
   
   Cheerio,
   
   Link.
   
   
   

10. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> — 1999-10-20T08:38:09Z

    Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
    > 
    > At 04:12 PM 20-10-1999 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
    > >It doesn't seem as MVCC problem. MVCC uses transaction ids,
    > >not tuple ones, and so should work with any number of rows
    > >modified by concurrent transaction... In theory... -:))
    > 
    > OK. Dunno what I hit then. I wasn't modifying rows, I was inserting rows.
    
    You hit buffer manager/disk manager problems or eat all disk space.
    As for "modifying" - I meant insertion, deletion, update...
    
    > How many rows (blocks) can I insert before I have to do a commit?
    
    Each transaction can have up to 2^32 commands.
    
    > Well anyway the Postgres inserts aren't so much slower if I only commit
    > once in a while. Only about 3 times slower for the first 100,000 records.
    > So the subject line is now inaccurate :). Not bad, I like it.
    
    Hope that it will be much faster when WAL will be implemented...
    
    Vadim
    
    

11. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh@mecomb.com> — 1999-10-21T01:08:15Z

    At 04:38 PM 20-10-1999 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
    >You hit buffer manager/disk manager problems or eat all disk space.
    >As for "modifying" - I meant insertion, deletion, update...
    
    There was enough disk space (almost another gig more). So it's probably
    some buffer manager problem. Is that the postgres buffer manager or is it a
    Linux one?
    
    Are you able to duplicate that problem? All I did was to turn off
    autocommit and start inserting. 
    
    >> How many rows (blocks) can I insert before I have to do a commit?
    >Each transaction can have up to 2^32 commands.
    
    Wow, that's cool.. Should be enough for everyone. I can't imagine anybody
    making 4 billion statements without committing anything, not even politicians!
    
    >> Well anyway the Postgres inserts aren't so much slower if I only commit
    >> once in a while. Only about 3 times slower for the first 100,000 records.
    >> So the subject line is now inaccurate :). Not bad, I like it.
    >
    >Hope that it will be much faster when WAL will be implemented...
    
    What's WAL? Is postgres going to be faster than MySQL? That would be pretty
    impressive- transactions and all. Woohoo!
    
    Hope it doesn't stand for Whoops, All's Lost :).
    
    Cheerio,
    
    Link.
    
    
    

12. What's WAL (wasRe: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?)

    Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin@texoma.net> — 1999-10-21T20:34:15Z

    I've seen WAL mentioned several times, but have yet to see anything
    about what it is.
    
    Help! :)
    
    What is WAL? Or is it something that is only known by the Illuminati? :)
    
    I did a search in the archives and came up empty, no hits. Not even the
    messages which only mention it. Nothing, nada, zip, no "gee I'm banging
    my head against the wall trying..." or anything else.
    
    After having read some of the messages in the archives today I have a
    confession.
    
    I am very much pro Linux, *BSDs, et al, but I do most of my web browsing
    at work on a Win95 machine using Netscape. I know it's scary, but I am
    not trying to be. Please forgive me. If at all possible I will try to
    atone by installing RH 6.x on my machine at work, if I can do it where
    my boss can boot (from a shutdown machine) into windows without knowing
    Linux exists. :)
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jimmie Houchin 
    
    Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
    > 
    > At 04:38 PM 20-10-1999 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
    > >Hope that it will be much faster when WAL will be implemented...
    > 
    > What's WAL? Is postgres going to be faster than MySQL? That would be pretty
    > impressive- transactions and all. Woohoo!
    > 
    > Hope it doesn't stand for Whoops, All's Lost :).
    > 
    > Cheerio,
    > 
    > Link.
    
    

13. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> — 1999-10-22T05:52:40Z

    Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
    > 
    > At 04:38 PM 20-10-1999 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
    > >You hit buffer manager/disk manager problems or eat all disk space.
    > >As for "modifying" - I meant insertion, deletion, update...
    > 
    > There was enough disk space (almost another gig more). So it's probably
    > some buffer manager problem. Is that the postgres buffer manager or is it a
    > Linux one?
    > 
    > Are you able to duplicate that problem? All I did was to turn off
    > autocommit and start inserting.
    
    I created table with text column and inserted 1000000 rows
    with '!' x rand(256) without problems on Sun Ultra, 6.5.2
    I run postmaster only with -S flag.
    And while inserting I run select count(*) from _table_
    in another session from time to time - wonder what was
    returned all the time before commit? -:))
    
    > >> Well anyway the Postgres inserts aren't so much slower if I only commit
    > >> once in a while. Only about 3 times slower for the first 100,000 records.
    > >> So the subject line is now inaccurate :). Not bad, I like it.
    > >
    > >Hope that it will be much faster when WAL will be implemented...
    > 
    > What's WAL? Is postgres going to be faster than MySQL? That would be pretty
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                    No.
    
    > impressive- transactions and all. Woohoo!
    
    WAL is Write Ahead Log, transaction logging.
    This will reduce # of fsyncs (among other things) Postgres has
    to perform now.
    Test above took near 38 min without -F flag and 24 min
    with -F (no fsync at all).
    With WAL the same test without -F will be near as fast as with
    -F now.
    
    But what makes me unhappy right now is that with -F COPY FROM takes
    JUST 3 min !!! (And 16 min without -F)
    Isn't parsing/planning overhead toooo big ?!
    
    Vadim
    
    

14. Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-10-22T06:04:09Z

    > WAL is Write Ahead Log, transaction logging.
    > This will reduce # of fsyncs (among other things) Postgres has
    > to perform now.
    > Test above took near 38 min without -F flag and 24 min
    > with -F (no fsync at all).
    > With WAL the same test without -F will be near as fast as with
    > -F now.
    > 
    > But what makes me unhappy right now is that with -F COPY FROM takes
    > JUST 3 min !!! (And 16 min without -F)
    > Isn't parsing/planning overhead toooo big ?!
    
    Yikes.  I always thought it would be nice to try and cache query plans
    by comparing parse trees, and if they match cached versions, replace any
    constants with new ones and use cached query plan.  Hard to do right,
    though.
    
    
    -- 
      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
    
    

15. Re: What's WAL

    Christian Rudow <christian.rudow@thinx.ch> — 1999-10-22T06:25:19Z

    Jimmie Houchin wrote:
    
    > What is WAL? Or is it something that is only known by the Illuminati? :)
    
    I understand your fears. I can also not follow all that the
    linux cracks around me are talking about.
    
    I also was still using a Windows workstation for quite some
    time, when we had already started our almost-linux-only startup
    business writing Perl apps for PG.
    
    And I still have a dual boot laptop allowing me to use Win98
    and IE5.0 when I cannot get internet banking to work under linux
    or I want to watch a DVD movie or do some other multimedia stuff
    that I don't understand what it does and only want to enjoy.
    
    I'm not one of the guys who enjoy configuring linux for two
    days to get some device working. No it rather scares me.
    I enjoy to have working solutions though. (I also never looked
    closely at the motors inside of any of the cars I owned).
    
    But what I learned is, that still you have to do some learning.
    You do it involuntarily as a Windows user. Linux gives you the
    freedom to do it on your free choice - having great support
    from a lot of people who really know what they are doing.
    
    So - get down from envying the "Illuminati" - build up a working
    linux configuration - step by step - slowly. And ... if you are one of
    the less brighter guy's like me - don't ask for too much at one
    time.
    
    E.g.
    I still don't use an Office Suite under Linux. So I made a (very
    basic) installation of Samba and use an old laptop with Win95 and
    my Office97 Software on the Linux shares.
    No sweat. And no apologies necessary.
    There's nothing to be ashamed of to be a Windows user. Being a
    Linux user can sometimes make you a little proud, though. That's
    a difference.
    
    So lets just think that WAL means : use "Windows And Linux".
    
    Good Luck !
    Chris
    -- 
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Christian Rudow                 E-Mail: Christian.Rudow@thinx.ch
    ThinX networked business services    Stahlrain 10, CH-5200 Brugg
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
    

16. Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-10-22T15:08:01Z

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
    >> But what makes me unhappy right now is that with -F COPY FROM takes
    >> JUST 3 min !!! (And 16 min without -F)
    >> Isn't parsing/planning overhead toooo big ?!
    
    > Yikes.  I always thought it would be nice to try and cache query plans
    > by comparing parse trees, and if they match cached versions, replace any
    > constants with new ones and use cached query plan.  Hard to do right,
    > though.
    
    But INSERT ... VALUES(...) has such a trivial plan that it's hardly
    likely to be worth caching.  We probably ought to do some profiling to
    see where the time is going, and see if we can't speed things up for
    this simple case.
    
    In the meantime, the conventional wisdom is still that you should use
    COPY, if possible, for bulk data loading.  (If you need default values
    inserted in some columns then this won't do...)
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

17. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin@texoma.net> — 1999-10-22T15:32:27Z

    Hello,
    
    Thanks for the reply.
    
    Actually I don't fear Linux, I embrace it. :)
    I am quite proficient with Windows but have never considered myself a
    Windows user. I don't own a Windows machine and currently have no
    intentions of it. I do however use it a work because my boss wanted a
    machine which could play DOOM. :(
    
    I own 4 Macs at home, one of which I have LinuxPPC installed. I will be
    purchasing an Athlon PC this winter for my own use. I will install RH
    6.x on it. I have never really put too much thought on installing Linux
    on my PC at work. There are only 2 employees here and one computer. My
    boss is not computer proficient. He plays games, primarily solitaire. I
    run the computer and the business uses. Whatever I do Linux wise, I
    wanted it to be reasonably transparent to his usage, which is minimal.
    I'll install Mandrake Linux and put a games folder in the "Start" menu
    and put solitaire inside of it. He might not ever even no I'm no longer
    in Windows. :)
    However, when I'm not in the office and the computer is shutdown I
    wanted him to be able to start up the computer and boot straight into
    windows. Typing "win" at a prompt might lose him. :)
    
    I don't envy the Illuminati, only their understanding of what WAL is. :)
    
    I really wasn't apologizing for being a Windows user, only for using
    Windows. :)
    It is a totally involuntary action.
    
    I am ready for the day when there is enough educational and edutainment
    software to be available that I can use Linux for my children computers.
    We use computer extensively in their education. But for now it'll be the
    MacOS. Someday if I get permission from my wife I'll install Linux and
    either Sheepshaver or Mac-on-Linux.
    
    Thanks for the opportunity for fun off topic banter. Now back to the
    show. I'll keep an eye on the Illuminati and maybe one of them will slip
    and reveal the meaning of the Great WAL of PostgreSQL. :)
    
    Later,
    
    Jimmie Houchin
    
    Christian Rudow wrote:
    > 
    > Jimmie Houchin wrote:
    > 
    > > What is WAL? Or is it something that is only known by the Illuminati? :)
    > 
    > I understand your fears. I can also not follow all that the
    > linux cracks around me are talking about.
    > 
    > I also was still using a Windows workstation for quite some
    > time, when we had already started our almost-linux-only startup
    > business writing Perl apps for PG.
    > 
    > And I still have a dual boot laptop allowing me to use Win98
    > and IE5.0 when I cannot get internet banking to work under linux
    > or I want to watch a DVD movie or do some other multimedia stuff
    > that I don't understand what it does and only want to enjoy.
    > 
    > I'm not one of the guys who enjoy configuring linux for two
    > days to get some device working. No it rather scares me.
    > I enjoy to have working solutions though. (I also never looked
    > closely at the motors inside of any of the cars I owned).
    > 
    > But what I learned is, that still you have to do some learning.
    > You do it involuntarily as a Windows user. Linux gives you the
    > freedom to do it on your free choice - having great support
    > from a lot of people who really know what they are doing.
    > 
    > So - get down from envying the "Illuminati" - build up a working
    > linux configuration - step by step - slowly. And ... if you are one of
    > the less brighter guy's like me - don't ask for too much at one
    > time.
    > 
    > E.g.
    > I still don't use an Office Suite under Linux. So I made a (very
    > basic) installation of Samba and use an old laptop with Win95 and
    > my Office97 Software on the Linux shares.
    > No sweat. And no apologies necessary.
    > There's nothing to be ashamed of to be a Windows user. Being a
    > Linux user can sometimes make you a little proud, though. That's
    > a difference.
    > 
    > So lets just think that WAL means : use "Windows And Linux".
    > 
    > Good Luck !
    > Chris
    > --
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > Christian Rudow                 E-Mail: Christian.Rudow@thinx.ch
    > ThinX networked business services    Stahlrain 10, CH-5200 Brugg
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > 
    > ************
    
    

18. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    James Thompson <jamest@math.ksu.edu> — 1999-10-22T16:05:52Z

    > Thanks for the opportunity for fun off topic banter. Now back to the
    > show. I'll keep an eye on the Illuminati and maybe one of them will slip
    > and reveal the meaning of the Great WAL of PostgreSQL. :)
    > 
    
    I pulled this from dejanews as the postgresql list archieve search is
    down.  I have no idea who said it......
    
    WAL is Write Ahead Log, transaction logging. This will reduce # of fsyncs
    (among other things) Postgres has to perform now.  
    
    ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->---<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
    James Thompson    138 Cardwell Hall  Manhattan, Ks   66506    785-532-0561 
    Kansas State University                          Department of Mathematics
    ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->---<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
    
    
    
    

19. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin@texoma.net> — 1999-10-22T16:26:26Z

    Hello,
    
    Thanks,
    
    Yes, the Illuminati has spoken. :)
    
    The quote is from Vadim in the "Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much
    slower than MySQL?" thread.
    After I sent my message and continued reading the new messages in my
    box, I read the post to which you refer.
    
    Now the intrigue is over. I are educated. :)
    
    I was not aware that DejaNews had the postgresql mailing lists. I'll
    have to look into this.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Jimmie Houchin
    
    James Thompson wrote:
    > 
    > > Thanks for the opportunity for fun off topic banter. Now back to the
    > > show. I'll keep an eye on the Illuminati and maybe one of them will slip
    > > and reveal the meaning of the Great WAL of PostgreSQL. :)
    > >
    > 
    > I pulled this from dejanews as the postgresql list archieve search is
    > down.  I have no idea who said it......
    > 
    > WAL is Write Ahead Log, transaction logging. This will reduce # of fsyncs
    > (among other things) Postgres has to perform now.
    > 
    > ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->---<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
    > James Thompson    138 Cardwell Hall  Manhattan, Ks   66506    785-532-0561
    > Kansas State University                          Department of Mathematics
    > ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->---<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
    
    

20. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1999-10-23T00:20:59Z

    On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Christian Rudow wrote:
    
    > So - get down from envying the "Illuminati" - build up a working
    > linux configuration - step by step - slowly. And ... if you are one of
    > the less brighter guy's like me - don't ask for too much at one
    > time.
    
    Actually, 3 out of 4 Illuminati use *BSD ... 
    
    Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
    Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
    primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 
    
    
    

21. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    Charles Tassell <ctassell@isn.net> — 1999-10-23T06:29:42Z

    That's why you don't hear anything about them anymore, they are stuck in 
    the past... :)
    
    At 09:20 PM 10/22/99, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
    >On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Christian Rudow wrote:
    >
    > > So - get down from envying the "Illuminati" - build up a working
    > > linux configuration - step by step - slowly. And ... if you are one of
    > > the less brighter guy's like me - don't ask for too much at one
    > > time.
    >
    >Actually, 3 out of 4 Illuminati use *BSD ...
    >
    >Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
    >Systems Administrator @ hub.org
    >primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: 
    >scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
    >
    >
    >************
    
    
    

22. Re: [GENERAL] Re: What's WAL

    Samy Elashmawy <samelash@ix.netcom.com> — 1999-10-23T08:38:50Z

    Whats BSD ?? Hows itcompare to linux ?
    
    Newbie you know
    
    At 09:20 PM 10/22/1999 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
    >On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Christian Rudow wrote:
    >
    >> So - get down from envying the "Illuminati" - build up a working
    >> linux configuration - step by step - slowly. And ... if you are one of
    >> the less brighter guy's like me - don't ask for too much at one
    >> time.
    >
    >Actually, 3 out of 4 Illuminati use *BSD ... 
    >
    >Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick:
    Scrappy
    >Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
    >primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary:
    scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 
    >
    >
    >************
    >
    >
    
    

23. Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL?

    Herouth Maoz <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il> — 1999-10-27T17:21:03Z

    At 17:08 +0200 on 22/10/1999, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    
    > In the meantime, the conventional wisdom is still that you should use
    > COPY, if possible, for bulk data loading.  (If you need default values
    > inserted in some columns then this won't do...)
    
    Yes it would - in two steps. COPY to a temp table that only has the
    non-default columns. Then INSERT ... SELECT ... from that temp table to
    your "real" table.
    
    Herouth
    
    --
    Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
    Open University of Israel - Telem project
    http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma