On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:25:57AM +0300, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
Please help.
how?
...
PostgreSQL has very-very good documentation, but it teaches to
go Pg's way, which is not right in that sense, unfortunately...
By supplying documentation patches, perhaps ?
Karsten
--
GPG key ID
Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2006 21:24 schrieb Neil Conway:
I think a better approach would be to introduce the concept of SQL
dialects, similar to --std=... in GCC or SQL modes in MySQL 5. That
would help people who want to write standard-compliant applications
while not inconveniencing those who
Chris Velevitch wrote:
Are you saying that the strategy pg uses is dynamic, in that as the
size of the table grows the strategy changes?
The planner is quite dynamic, and what strategy it comes up with will
depend not just on the size of the table, but other things as well,
even on the
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2006-02-26 19:01:58 -0400:
'k, I just checked all the lists you listed, and you are subscribed to
each of them ... are you not receiving messages?
I'm not receiving messages because I'm subscribed with nomail.
That's not the problem however. I want to receive the
S.Thanga Prakash [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are already in the process of migrating toward 8.1 .
For existing support, we like to support with 7.1.3 .
No, just stop right there; your reasonable-sounding premise is utterly
not reasonable. You should be making every possible effort to
On 2/27/06, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2006 21:24 schrieb Neil Conway:
I think a better approach would be to introduce the concept of SQL
dialects, similar to --std=... in GCC or SQL modes in MySQL 5. That
would help people who want to write
On 2/27/06, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The alternatives to distinct on are painful. They are generally both harder
to read and run slower.
'DISTINCT ON' is evil constuction, because (w/o any 'ORDER BY') it
produses unpredictable result, as 'ORDER BY random()' does.
When newbie
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
On 2/27/06, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The alternatives to distinct on are painful. They are generally both harder
to read and run slower.
'DISTINCT ON' is evil constuction, because (w/o any 'ORDER BY') it
produses unpredictable
On 2/27/06, Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
On 2/27/06, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The alternatives to distinct on are painful. They are generally both harder
to read and run slower.
'DISTINCT ON' is evil
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:26:02PM +0300, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
On 2/27/06, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such a thing has been discussed from time to time but in reality you
wouldn't
get useful results from it because just about any application will violate
the standard
On 2/27/06, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
Huh? We should ofcourse try to implement SQL:2003 wherever we can, but
to say this means we need to throw out anything not mentioned is silly.
For example, CREATE INDEX is not in SQL:2003, are you seriously
suggesting we remove it?
i
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:59:21PM +0300, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
On 2/27/06, Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'DISTINCT ON' is evil constuction, because (w/o any 'ORDER BY') it
produses unpredictable result, as 'ORDER BY random()' does.
And so does UNION in the standard under
Tsearch2 searches for whole words, and is designed with language in mind, yes?
I'm looking for consecutive characters in words or serial numbers, etc.
As for support, the same guys who wrote Tsearch2 wrote ltree. Can't go wrong
there!
Here's the solution to this problem: As usual, operator
Hello Guys,
first of all, great effort from you this
tool.
Problem exists with following config:
- Windows XP Pro, SP2 (English).
-PostgreSQL-8.1.3
- lot of development programs, and IDE-s (for the
clients i am working unfortunately
they are windoz-based :-(...).
Same problem occurs as
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
it's completely different thing. look at the spec and you'll
understand the difference. in two words, with 'DISTINCT ON' we lose
some values (from some columns), when UNION not (it just removes
duplicates, comparing _entire_ rows).
No it's not,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:14:40AM -0800, CG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could probably get even better performance out of the table, at the cost of
a
significant increase in table and index size, by chopping up the columns into
smaller chunks.
Hello World would yield
Thank you very much for all your inputs. I believe analyze is the one
I should use .
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emi Lu):
no. the suggestion was that a VACUUM is not needed, but that an
ANALYZE might be.
Thank you gnari for your answer. But I am a bit confused about not
running vacuum
That would do the job, wouldn't it? :)
I don't think it's a naive question at all. Its quite a good question, and the
solution you suggest is a good option to have, and would probably work better
than the single-vector ltree index for simple substring matching. In my case,
the ltree+gist index
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 18:34:16 +0300,
Nikolay Samokhvalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/06, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The alternatives to distinct on are painful. They are generally both harder
to read and run slower.
'DISTINCT ON' is evil constuction, because (w/o
Hi,
2 weeks ago, a user in -tr-genel asked for a function to break
path/polygon type data into pieces. He also told that, it creates a
bottleneck in the network traffic when they try to receive rows with
polygon data of thousands of nodes, while it's enough for them to
have polygons partially.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:27:20AM -0800, CG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'd need to see if the space required for the varchar+btree tables are
comparible, better, or worse than the ltree+gist tables with regards to size.
Please test this, I'm guessing (hoping actually) that having
Hi Stephen,
We have millions of record and would like to insert into a table. I
remebered people mentioned that COPY is the most effecient way to
insert data, right? If not, which is it, pg_restore?
By the way, does it have to be superuser to run copy to and from?
COPY is what you
Can you try something more recent then last year?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2006-02-26 19:01:58 -0400:
'k, I just checked all the lists you listed, and you are subscribed to
each of them ... are you not receiving messages?
I'm not receiving
Emi Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, running psql -d db -h ... from STDID, I believe we are
forced to type the password through prompt command line. Since our data
population task is through cronjob, is there a way, we can run COPY ...
STDIN by explicitly specifying password so that
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:41:52PM +0200, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
2 weeks ago, a user in -tr-genel asked for a function to break
path/polygon type data into pieces. He also told that, it creates a
bottleneck in the network traffic when they try to receive rows with
polygon data of thousands of
I am using triggers and table inheritance for my audit tables. Here is
the function I am using its straight copy from the docs.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION process_reward_audit()
RETURNS trigger AS
$BODY$
BEGIN
IF (TG_OP = 'INSERT') THEN
INSERT
On 02/26/2006-10:36AM, Andrus Moor wrote:
It is difficult to write standard-compliant code in Postgres.
There are a lot of constructs which have SQL equivalents but are still used
widely, even in samples in docs!
For example, there are suggestions using
now()::CHAR!=foo
while the
Just got posted to the FreeBSD list ... has several questions that revolve
around the BSD vs GPL licensing, and somewhere that 'omit' PostgreSQL as
an OS option (while others include it) ...
http://enews.sun.com/CTServlet?id=103018442-968290480:1141071714252
Marc G. Fournier
How can I dump a function definition with pg_dump?
Background: We often need to create objects that are all relevant to
only a specific project. Sometimes it is a single table. Other times
there are many tables, indexes, views, rules, triggers and functions.
All the objects share a unique
Aren't you afraid of that in the future these people will
switch to MySQL because of ability to work in standard way?..
You're joking, right? At least I had a good laugh.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Randy Yates wrote:
I've noticed that the PDF version of the manuals for 8.0 and 8.1
are lacking bookmarks and/or TOC and document reference links. If
this is generated via LaTeX, such links oculd easily be incorporated
via the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:05:51PM -0500, Stock, Stuart wrote:
A few minutes ago, we were surprised to find a second postmaster process
running on our database machine as a child of the original postmaster. The
child postmaster was around for about a minute then disappeared. This is a
Opteron
Michael,
Thank you very much for your response.
I tried your solutions but still it looks like it doesn't work when I
delete random records.
select * from foo;
id | val
+-
1 | 13
2 | 14
3 | 15
(3 rows)
delete from foo where val = '13';
DELETE 1
delete from foo where val = '15';
Hi all,
I am facing performance issues even with less than 3000 records, I am
using Triggers/SPs in all the tables. What could be the problem.
Any idea it is good to use triggers w.r.t performance?
Regards,
Jeeva.K
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 07:39:22PM -0800, Natasha Galkina wrote:
I tried your solutions but still it looks like it doesn't work when I
delete random records.
[...]
As you can see the record with value '14' is gone without explicit
delete, which is not what I expected. Do you have any ideas on
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:14:59 +0530,
Jeevanandam, Kathirvel (IE10) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Please don't hijack existing threads to start new ones. This can cause
people to miss your question and messes up the archives.
Performance questions should generally be posted to the
Jeevanandam, Kathirvel (IE10) schrieb:
Hi all,
I am facing performance issues even with less than 3000 records, I am
using Triggers/SPs in all the tables. What could be the problem.
Any idea it is good to use triggers w.r.t performance?
Much to general. What triggers? (what are they doing,
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:05:51PM -0500, Stock, Stuart wrote:
A few minutes ago, we were surprised to find a second postmaster process
running on our database machine as a child of the original postmaster.
Each connection causes the postmaster to fork a
38 matches
Mail list logo
