>> Hmm a very interesing theoretical topic...
>> Wouldnt make sense to tie this in with the implementation of a Foriegn
Key?
>> So when the foriegn key is defined you create anoter index that stores
all
>> the relevant child to parent relationships and can be used to speed up
that
>> access s
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to make one small request for future releases. Is there a
> > > setup parameter that could be enabled that would put a timeout for a query
> > > that runs too long or endangers the integrity of the system? With the
> > > systems that I use, there ar
Hi All.
I asked a question in group "novice" but haven't got an answer,
therefore decided to ask here.
How to inherit primary key?
For example, i have created tables
create table t1(
id int4 primary key
)
create table t2(
name text
)
inherits (t1)
and i would like to have id as a primary
Stuart Rison wrote:
>
> Since I thought that probably left the table a bit messed up, I started a:
>
> VACUUM blast_hits;
>
> It's using 95% of the cpu and seems to be going nowhere (at least not in
> the 30 minutes it has been running so far).
>
> QUESTION 2: What do I do now? Is there any w
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I would like to make one small request for future releases. Is there a
> > setup parameter that could be enabled that would put a timeout for a query
> > that runs too long or endangers the integrity of the system? With the
> > systems that I use, there are times that
Hi,
I have a problem about date convertion.
I insert a value which attribute is date, like this:
insert into example values ('19 Mar 1999');
How do I show the date become 1999/3/19?
Thanks in advance,
Albert.
__
Get Your Private, Free Email
Leon wrote:
>
> Ah, you mean MVCC! That's what I replied to Tom Lane:
>
> > This problem can be solved. An offhand solution is to have
> > an additional system field which will point to new tuple left after
> > update. It is filled at the same time as the original tuple is
> > marked invalid. S
> I would like to make one small request for future releases. Is there a
> setup parameter that could be enabled that would put a timeout for a query
> that runs too long or endangers the integrity of the system? With the
> systems that I use, there are times that queries are entered that contai
>
> What is MVCC?
multi-version concurrency control, new in 6.5.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup.| Drexel
What is MVCC?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > Hmm a very interesing theoretical topic...
> > Wouldnt make sense to tie this in with the implementation of a Foriegn Key?
> > So when the foriegn key is defined you create anoter index that stores all
> > the relevant child to parent relationships a
>
> Hmm a very interesing theoretical topic...
> Wouldnt make sense to tie this in with the implementation of a Foriegn Key?
> So when the foriegn key is defined you create anoter index that stores all
> the relevant child to parent relationships and can be used to speed up that
> access since it
> hlt=> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM hltdata ORDER BY stmp, id LIMIT 10;
If I remember well, the order of the index attributes must be the same as
... in the query which should use it: try "id, stmp"
> Hello David,
>
> Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
>
> D> I have just been thinking a bit more and have realised that the
> D> multi-generational architecture of 6.5 (which I have used in Interbase)
> D> means that probably both clustering (in thr dynamic sense) and full
> D> record number supp
Hello Bruce,
Tuesday, July 06, 1999 you wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it is a silly question, but what are "more than one version
>> of a record"? In my opinion record is a atomic unique entity.
>> Isn't it?
B> Read how MVCC works in the manuals.
Ah, you mean MVCC! That's what I replied to Tom Lane:
> T
Hello Clark,
Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
C> In my understanding, pointer based approaches like you
C> are recommending have been implemented in several prototype
C> objected oriented databases. They have been shown to be
C> orders of magnitude slower than set oriented techniques,thus
C> ma
Leon wrote:
> Why? There will be no such field as "record number", the only
> place where it can exist is the field which references another
> table. I can quite share your feeling about wrongness of
> physical-oriented things in abstract tables, but don't
> plain old indices deal with physical re
Hmm a very interesing theoretical topic...
Wouldnt make sense to tie this in with the implementation of a Foriegn Key?
So when the foriegn key is defined you create anoter index that stores all
the relevant child to parent relationships and can be used to speed up that
access since it obviously w
Hello David,
Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
D> I have just been thinking a bit more and have realised that the
D> multi-generational architecture of 6.5 (which I have used in Interbase)
D> means that probably both clustering (in thr dynamic sense) and full
D> record number support as request b
Hello Bruce,
Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
>> I have just been thinking a bit more and have realised that the
>> multi-generational architecture of 6.5 (which I have used in Interbase)
>> means that probably both clustering (in thr dynamic sense) and full
>> record number support as request b
> And, besides, it is not only my personal wish. What I am
> proposing is huge (dozen-fold) performance gain on widespread
> tasks. If you implement this, happy users will erect a gold
> monument to Postgres development team.
We(Vadim) did MVCC, and I haven't seen any monuments yet.
--
Bruce
Dear all,
I started did the following on a table (blast_hits) with approximately
400,000 rows:
BEGIN;
UPDATE blast_hits SET hit_id=hit_id+40 WHERE hit_id<=208611;
this was taking much too long (and I realised it was useless anyway)... so
aborted with Control C).
then did an END;
QUESTION
Hello David,
Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
D> If you are interested in other solutions that do not involve adding
D> record number support (which I personally still feel to be a mistake in
D> a set orientated dbms)
Why? There will be no such field as "record number", the only
place where it
22 matches
Mail list logo
