I have a varying(200) text column that I need to be able to do lookups
on very fast (WHERE col = 'foo') - The data in this table will pretty
much never change (when it does I have to restart the entire server,
so updates of any sort are extremely rare). I estimate the table will
hold around 5,000
---
Hi Tom,
Modifying the pg_statistics is not a good idea for most practical purposes. The modification, however, becomes a necessity to implement automatic physical design techniques. We are developing an automatic physical designer for Postgres. The designer will add features that most
So, I've got it installed, and tweaked the configuration, but I simply
can not figure out how to connect to my databases via pgpool. Is this
simply transparent? I don't see how.
So I have a postmaster running on port 5434, how do I connect to that
database via pgpool? I simply can not find
Hi Geoffrey,
you do not need to connect to your database directly, just connect to pgpool
itself.
e.g.: your database runs on port 5434, pgpool runs on port 5432
=
* pgpool has to be configured in that way that it connects to the database on
port 5434
* you/your app's should connect to the
Hi List,
I need a small help regarding the password options available with PGSQL, I
found POSTGRE SQL has -W and -password options available which is prompting for
the password. But I want to take the password thru command line argument and
keep the password in a variable. Is there any option
In response to Ravi Katkar :
Hi List,
I need a small help regarding the password options available with PGSQL, I
found POSTGRE SQL has ?W and ?password options available which is prompting
for
the password. But I want to take the password thru command line argument and
keep the
2010/6/21 Teodor Macicas teodor.maci...@epfl.ch:
---
Hi Tom, Modifying the pg_statistics is not a good idea for most
practical purposes. The modification, however, becomes a necessity to
implement automatic physical design techniques. We are developing an
automatic physical designer
Gerd Koenig wrote:
Hi Geoffrey,
you do not need to connect to your database directly, just connect to pgpool
itself.
e.g.: your database runs on port 5434, pgpool runs on port 5432
=
* pgpool has to be configured in that way that it connects to the database on
port 5434
* you/your app's
Gerd Koenig wrote:
Hi Geoffrey,
you do not need to connect to your database directly, just connect to pgpool
itself.
e.g.: your database runs on port 5434, pgpool runs on port 5432
=
* pgpool has to be configured in that way that it connects to the database on
port 5434
What parameter in
Geoffrey wrote:
Gerd Koenig wrote:
Hi Geoffrey,
you do not need to connect to your database directly, just connect to
pgpool itself.
e.g.: your database runs on port 5434, pgpool runs on port 5432
=
* pgpool has to be configured in that way that it connects to the
database on port 5434
So I've got the following:
port =
.
.
backend_hostname0 = 'localhost'
backend_port0 = 5434
backend_weight0 = 1
backend_data_directory0 = '/data/pgsql/master'
backend_hostname1 = 'localhost'
backend_port1 = 5435
backend_weight1 = 1
backend_data_directory1 = '/data/pgsql/mwv'
In my
Teodor Macicas teodor.maci...@epfl.ch writes:
Modifying the pg_statistics is not a good idea for most
practical purposes.
That's what I've been telling you.
We want to extend the system by doing the physical design
outside the production database, and hence need to replicate the
On Monday 21 June 2010 7:23:06 am Tom Lane wrote:
Teodor Macicas teodor.maci...@epfl.ch writes:
Modifying the pg_statistics is not a good idea for most
practical purposes.
That's what I've been telling you.
We want to extend the system by doing the physical design
outside the
Le 21/06/2010 15:52, Geoffrey a écrit :
So I've got the following:
port =
.
.
backend_hostname0 = 'localhost'
backend_port0 = 5434
backend_weight0 = 1
backend_data_directory0 = '/data/pgsql/master'
backend_hostname1 = 'localhost'
backend_port1 = 5435
backend_weight1 = 1
Sim Zacks wrote:
database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you lose
most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For example, if
you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
cannot use delete cascades.
The most efficient way is to have a
David Goodenough wrote:
I don't support anyone has written a how to write database agnostic
code guide? That way its not a matter of porting, more a matter of
starting off right.
There is no real way to write database[-]agnostic SQL, although of course
middleware code can and should be.
On Monday 21 June 2010, Lew wrote:
Sim Zacks wrote:
database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you
lose
most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For
example, if
you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
cannot use delete
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:35:02AM -0400, Lew wrote:
David Goodenough wrote:
I don't support anyone has written a how to write database
agnostic code guide? That way its not a matter of porting, more a
matter of starting off right.
There is no real way to write database[-]agnostic SQL,
then you want your code to call stub functions (with DBSpecific stack
parameters)
Insert
Update
Delete(-with-cascade)
Select
I ran into a problem recently where i wanted to LOCK table MySQL which of
course is a no-op in MySQL so I carried the driver string as a stack param e.g.
public
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:14:10PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
On Monday 21 June 2010, Lew wrote:
Sim Zacks wrote:
database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you
lose
most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For
example, if
you support an engine
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
Le 21/06/2010 15:52, Geoffrey a écrit :
So I've got the following:
port =
.
.
backend_hostname0 = 'localhost'
backend_port0 = 5434
backend_weight0 = 1
backend_data_directory0 = '/data/pgsql/master'
backend_hostname1 = 'localhost'
backend_port1 = 5435
As with phrases like, the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,
that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of app
they want to write.
If it's a simple web content management system, the possibility of
having
I have the same table as yours with potential to grow over 50 billion of
records once operational. But our hardware is currently very limited (8GB
RAM).
I concur with Tom Lane about the fact that partial indexes aren't really an
option, but what about partitioning?
I read from the Postgres
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
If you want to be able to connect on various databases from various
servers, pgBouncer is what you're looking for.
It does not appear that pgbouncer will 'limit exceeding connections' as
does pgpool. So if I have a pool of 20 connections and 20 connections
are
Scott Marlowe wrote:
As with phrases like, the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,
that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of app
they want to write.
Or what sort of performance requirements are
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:55:36PM -0400, Brad Nicholson wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
As with phrases like, the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,
that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of
app they
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on 13 different postmasters, now
does pgpool know which databases I'm trying to connect to?
you would need 13 different connection pools.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
Autogenerated select statement contains 0 .. n left joins:
SELECT somecolumns
FROM ko
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey= ko.t1foreignkwey
...
LEFT JOIN tn ON tn.primarykey= ko.tnforeignkwey
WHERE ko.primarykey='someprimarykeyvalue';
This select can return only 0 or 1 rows depending if ko row with
Try wrapping the entire statement in a COALESCE((statement),
DEFAULT_VALUE);
-m
2010/6/21 Andrus kobrule...@hot.ee
Autogenerated select statement contains 0 .. n left joins:
SELECT somecolumns
FROM ko
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey= ko.t1foreignkwey
...
LEFT JOIN tn ON tn.primarykey=
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com writes:
Two DB servers will be using a common external storage (with raid).
This is also one of the only postgres HA configurations that won't lose
/any/ committed transactions on a failure. Most all PITR/WAL
replication/Slony/etc configs, the standby
Martin,
Thank you. SELECT statement returns lot of columns.
I tried
select coalesce( (select 1,2 ), null);
but got
ERROR: subquery must return only one column
How to use your suggestion if select returns lot of columns ?
Andrus.
- Original Message -
From: Martin
To:
On 06/21/10 12:23 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
John R Piercepie...@hogranch.com writes:
Two DB servers will be using a common external storage (with raid).
This is also one of the only postgres HA configurations that won't lose
/any/ committed transactions on a failure. Most all
John R Pierce wrote:
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on 13 different postmasters, now
does pgpool know which databases I'm trying to connect to?
you would need 13 different connection pools.
Can this be done?
--
Until later, Geoffrey
I predict
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on 13 different postmasters, now does
pgpool know which databases I'm trying to connect to?
you would need 13 different
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on 13 different postmasters, now does
pgpool know which databases I'm trying to connect to?
you would
Andrus kobrule...@hot.ee wrote:
Autogenerated select statement contains 0 .. n left joins:
SELECT somecolumns
FROM ko
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey= ko.t1foreignkwey
...
LEFT JOIN tn ON tn.primarykey= ko.tnforeignkwey
WHERE ko.primarykey='someprimarykeyvalue';
This select can return
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:27:20 -0700
David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:55:36PM -0400, Brad Nicholson wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
As with phrases like, the quickest way to grill a unicorn
steak, that it can be stated in a few words does not make in
possible.
Ah yes sorry I missed the multi-columns. My way doesn't work for that.
If Tim's suggestion doesn't work for you, you could try a union...
it's fairly nasty and you will always have your fake row in the result.
Also I too am confused by empty row. Are you trying to loop through the
results in code
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com
wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on 13 different
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey li...@serioustechnology.com
wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 06/21/10 5:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
So I've got 13 different databases on
Use a case staement to test for a null output, return whatever you want in
the event of it being null, else the actual value:
from the top of my head, something like:
SELECT case when
(select somecolumns
FROM ko
RIGHT JOIN (SELECT 1) _forceonerow ON true
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey=
How about:
SELECT * from (
SELECT somecolumns
FROM ko
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey= ko.t1foreignkwey
...
LEFT JOIN tn ON tn.primarykey= ko.tnforeignkwey
WHERE ko.primarykey='someprimarykeyvalue'
UNION ALL
SELECT default_value
)
LIMIT 1;
-Original Message-
From:
Brett Mc Bride brett.mcbr...@deakin.edu.au wrote:
How about:
SELECT * from (
SELECT somecolumns
FROM ko
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.primarykey= ko.t1foreignkwey
...
LEFT JOIN tn ON tn.primarykey= ko.tnforeignkwey
WHERE ko.primarykey='someprimarykeyvalue'
UNION ALL
SELECT default_value
)
LIMIT
My understanding of UNION ALL is that it won't sort the rows...?
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tim Landscheidt
Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2010 9:41 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re:
Brett Mc Bride brett.mcbr...@deakin.edu.au wrote:
My understanding of UNION ALL is that it won't sort the rows...?
[...]
It doesn't, but that's not promised for every data set, ev-
ery PostgreSQL version, every phase of the moon. To quote
I have latest Postgresql installed on a notebook and now trying to
install the driver which I have downloaded and run so that it is now
available in the ODBC Data Source Administrator
This machine has CA security suite, latest version installed and I have
added a network rule that allows all
Assuming a TCP/IP connection, does the server machine know about your tcp/ip
address in pg_hba.conf?
Otherwise, what kind of connection protocol are you using?
I promise, no Lakers jokes.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
Tom Lane wrote:
Doing pg_dump would expose the mistake if you'd removed an actual
table's files. But I'm not sure it would expose it if you removed
an index ...
Right, but in theory if you screwed up and accidentally deleted a file
holding an index, you could recover from that in the
Hi all,
I have the following (very simplified) scenario:
CREATE DOMAIN orderstatus AS text NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Open';
ALTER DOMAIN orderstatus ADD CONSTRAINT orderstatus_valid
CHECK (VALUE IN ('Open', 'Shipped', Cancelled'));
CREATE TABLE orders ( orderno serial
John R Pierce wrote:
the commercial cluster software vendors insist on using dedicated
connections for the heartbeat messages between the cluster members and
insist on having fencing capabilities (for instance, disabling the
fiber switch port of the formerly active server and enabling the port
Is there any technical obstacle to anyone creating PL/PHP? I am cruious as
to why it doesn't alreay exist. I mean, I love my Tcl support, and I know
this is part of PG's legacy... but Tcl and no PHP? I figure there's a tech
reason for this - the demand must be there! No?
--
Sent via
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Carlo Stonebanks
stonec.regis...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Is there any technical obstacle to anyone creating PL/PHP? I am cruious as
to why it doesn't alreay exist. I mean, I love my Tcl support, and I know
this is part of PG's legacy... but Tcl and no PHP? I
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Devrim GUNDUZ dev...@gunduz.org wrote:
22.Haz.2010 tarihinde 06:43 saatinde, Shoaib Mir shoaib...@gmail.com
şunları yazdı:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Carlo Stonebanks
stonec.regis...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Is there any technical obstacle to anyone
On 06/21/10 8:08 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
The hard part of shared storage failover is always solving the shoot
the other node in the head problem, to keep a down node from coming
back once it's no longer the active one. In order to do that well,
you really need to lock the now unavailable node
54 matches
Mail list logo
