Thank Tom,
I understand that the rationale behind choosing to create a new table from
distinct records is that, since both approaches need full table scans,
selecting distinct records is faster (and seems more straight forward) than
finding/deleting duplicates;
Hi,
on a large table you may get
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually remove it.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:18:53AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually remove it.
Uh, if we remove it, what tool does someone use from the command-line to
On Friday, December 12, 2014, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:18:53AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually remove it.
Hi Adrian,
so finally I have a workaround which is ok for me. When I seperate the
tables and the data (using the -a and -s switch from pg_dump) into 2 sql
backup files, everything works ok on the problem-VM.
I try to investigate further in the coming weeks, I´m on holiday next week.
Regards and
On 12/12/14 9:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:18:53AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually remove it.
Uh, if we remove it, what tool
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:42:48AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 12/12/14 9:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:18:53AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we
Seems promising but could you provide me a reference to PostgreSQL
documentation regarding this a%8=* feature?
Best
Daniel
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mamin
Sent: December-12-14 06:41
To: Daniel
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
Seems promising but could you provide me a reference to PostgreSQL
documentation regarding this a%8=* feature?
Best
% is the modulus operator.
Assuming a is an integer (I don't remember), then doing 8 selects of a
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually remove it.
I use it occasionally (but really dislike it) during testing and
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:18:01AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
pgsql-hackers are discussing some housekeeping in contrib.
Is anyone using the oid2name tool?
Otherwise, we might deprecate and eventually
John McKown wrote
I don't
know, myself, why this would be faster. But I'm not any kind of a
PostgreSQL expert either.
It is faster because PostgreSQL does not have native parallelism. By using
a%n in a where clause you can start n separate sessions and choose a
different value of n for each
Seems promising but could you provide me a reference to PostgreSQL
documentation regarding this a%8=* feature?
Best
% is the modulus operator.
Assuming a is an integer (I don't remember), then doing 8 selects of a
modulus 8 = for each of the possible results (0..7)? will each
I recently had need to do the same thing and I am having no luck. Admittedly,
I am not too keen on the postgres build setup and have not debugged this
extensively, but rather hoped there was an easy answer up front. That said….
I am trying to link libuuid into a custom extension, here is my
Alan Nilsson anils...@apple.com writes:
I am trying to link libuuid into a custom extension, here is my make file
(building PG 9.3.5 on CentOS 6.5 (GCC 4.4.7) fwiw):
MODULES = aitpowerpg
EXTENSION = aitpowerpg
DATA = aitpowerpg--1.0.sql
SHLIB_LINK += -luuid
ifdef USE_PGXS
PG_CONFIG =
Awesome - thanks Tom, works.
alan
On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alan Nilsson anils...@apple.com writes:
I am trying to link libuuid into a custom extension, here is my make file
(building PG 9.3.5 on CentOS 6.5 (GCC 4.4.7) fwiw):
MODULES = aitpowerpg
Thank Marc (and all others)
I knew that nothing was for free and understanding where the costs come from
would provide me with some rationale to make my choice!
However, I understand from your answer that there is no definitive approach
to do it right at this time (considering my specific
Can someone confirm a suspicion for me ?
I have a moderately sized table (20+ columns, 3MM rows) that tracks tags.
I have a lower(column) function index that is used simplify case-insensitive
lookups.
CREATE INDEX idx_tag_name_lower ON tag(lower(name));
I have a few complex queries
On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
select a,b,c into newtable from oldtable group by a,b,c;
On pass, done.
This is a bit naive, but couldn't this approach potentially be faster
(depending on the system)?
SELECT a, b, c INTO duplicate_records FROM ( SELECT a, b, c,
Jonathan Vanasco postg...@2xlp.com writes:
Am I correct in observing that the value of a function index can't be used
for sorting ?
No ...
regression=# create table tt (f1 int, f2 text);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create index on tt (lower(f2));
CREATE INDEX
regression=# explain select * from
On Dec 12, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
regression=# create table tt (f1 int, f2 text);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create index on tt (lower(f2));
CREATE INDEX
regression=# explain select * from tt order by lower(f2);
QUERY PLAN
Jonathan Vanasco postg...@2xlp.com writes:
Thank you so much for posting this test.
I got a seq scan on my local machine, so I checked the version... still
running 9.2.4.
I tried it on production (which is 9.3.x) and got the same result as you.
Hmm, well, I get the same result from 9.2.9,
On Dec 10, 2014, at 19:38 , Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Are you saying when you use a GIN index on a,b,c fields, you can do
lookups on them independently, like 'c'? I was not aware that works,
but it might. I know it doesn't work for traditional btree as the index
is
23 matches
Mail list logo
