Have you tried moving the FROM ... WHERE ... into a sub-select? GROUP BY uses
HAVING, not WHERE.
- Reply message -
From: "French, Martin"
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 7:44 pm
Subject: [ADMIN] Out Of Memory 8.1
To:
Hi All,
I am having problems with a query on 8.1 running on
RHEL 5.4
16GB
How recent is the vacuum in this DB?
- Reply message -
From: "Rajendra prasad"
Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 11:01 pm
Subject: [ADMIN] Index size growing
To:
Hi,
I have 50 GB data base folder for postgres. Out of 50 GB 20 GB has been
occupied by 8 indexes of a single table by growing upto
Wicked! Great answer. Thanks.
- Reply message -
From: "Frank Heikens"
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 3:54 pm
Subject: [ADMIN] sequence numbers under pg concurrence model
To: "scorpda...@hotmail.com"
Cc: "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org"
Op 24 feb 2011, om 20:49 heeft scorpda...@hotmail.com he
What is the expected behaviour of sequence numbers under pg concurrence model?
E.g. Uncommitted transaction 1 in progress has inserted 5 tuples into table
foo. Meanwhile uncommitted transaction 2 in progress inserts 100 tuples into
table foo. If the sequence number for the pk started at 1000
