Dear All,
THis is a test, please ignore.. sorry to border..
Jacky Hui
Mark Wilson wrote:
>
> Last night I reformatted the disk, create a new filesystem and restored
> the last good full backup (from about a week ago) hoping I could get a
^^^
What did you use for backup ?
pg_dump/copy or you cp-ed datafiles to another place ?
> version of th
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The right long-term solution is to figure out why the system is
> misestimating the relative costs of the two plans, and fix the cost
> estimates. (The system is estimating that the mergejoin is about 4x
> slower than hash; if it's really 8x faster, there is something pretty
> George Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes! PGOPTIONS="-fh" made the query time go from 16 seconds to 2 seconds!
> > Is this a safe thing to leave on permanently, or is there some way to set
> > PGOPTIONS for just this query?
>
> I wouldn't recommend leaving it on as a long-term solution
George Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes! PGOPTIONS="-fh" made the query time go from 16 seconds to 2 seconds!
> Is this a safe thing to leave on permanently, or is there some way to set
> PGOPTIONS for just this query?
I wouldn't recommend leaving it on as a long-term solution, because
yo
Hi
I am trying to figure out how I can create an entry if one does not
exist when attempting an update.
This kind of what I want to do :
if (select "User-Name","Realm" from details;) {
update details set "Time-Used" = old."Time-Used" +
new."Time-Used";
} else {
insert into detai
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Chris Bitmead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To me this is a much better idea. In any proper OO application you would
> > be using the "*" in postgres 99% of the time - that being the whole
> > point of OO.
And considering that the Informix OO is probably really
Illustra/Pos
If there was enuff interest (I'm not siding one way or the other) you could
add in a global setting to change the default.
I was also curious as to why these msgs are cross posted in 3 different
groups...
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Bitmead <[EMAIL PROTE
[PostgreSQL 6.5.0 on i586-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
table opset_steps
(name text, id int2, ver int2) [1400 rows]
non-unique index is on (id, ver)
table run_opsets
(status int2, id int2, ver int2, run_id int2, seq int2) [17000 rows]
pkey is (id, seq), sec
Mark Wilson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've been using version 6.4.2 for quite a while with absolutely no
> problems. Yesterday morning, a block on the disk containing all of my
> databases went bad.
If a disc happens to get a bad sector, it is advisable to throw it away
at once, because this mean
Chris Bitmead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To me this is a much better idea. In any proper OO application you would
> be using the "*" in postgres 99% of the time - that being the whole
> point of OO. Does any consideration want to be given to making the same
> change while there's not too many p
"Gunnar Ingvi Thorisson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I´ve a table with about 142000 rows like shown below and I want to
> set field "divis" to "unknown" by executing following update command:
> update ipacct set divis = 'unknown';
> However this seems to take hours,
Well, updating 142000 rows i
I've been reading up on what Informix and Oracle provide in the way of
object support.
In particular I noticed that in Informix when you SELECT on a table it
by default includes all the objects of sub-classes. In other words the
"*" is postgres terms is always there by default. If you just want
13 matches
Mail list logo
