> On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:18 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
> Dear robjsarg...@gmail.com,
>
> W dniu 16.09.2017 o 17:19, Gmail pisze:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> W dniu 16.09.2017 o 15:45, Adam Brusselback
On 17 September 2017 at 08:07, Kim Rose Carlsen wrote:
> It seems there are some difference in VARCHAR vs TEXT when postgres tries to
> decide if a LEFT JOIN is useful or not. I can't figure out if this is
> intentional because there are some difference between TEXT and VARCHAR
On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 19:18 +0200, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> Dear robjsarg...@gmail.com,
>
>
> I do have 17 "process tables" ... they are "class-B" tables, they
> DONT
> need any hierarchy. One of them contain payment details and has FK do
> a
> document (in one of the 12 tables of "class-A",
Hi
It seems there are some difference in VARCHAR vs TEXT when postgres tries to
decide if a LEFT JOIN is useful or not. I can't figure out if this is
intentional because there are some difference between TEXT and VARCHAR that I
dont know about or if it's a bug.
I would expect both examples
Dear robjsarg...@gmail.com,
W dniu 16.09.2017 o 17:19, Gmail pisze:
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> W dniu 16.09.2017 o 15:45, Adam Brusselback pisze:
>>> Here is the last discussion I saw on
>>> it:
>>>
> On Sep 16, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
>
>
> W dniu 16.09.2017 o 15:45, Adam Brusselback pisze:
>> Here is the last discussion I saw on
>> it:
>>
W dniu 16.09.2017 o 15:45, Adam Brusselback pisze:
> Here is the last discussion I saw on
> it:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/90261791-b731-a516-ab2a-dafb97df4464%40postgrespro.ru#90261791-b731-a516-ab2a-dafb97df4...@postgrespro.ru
>
Here is the last discussion I saw on it:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/90261791-b731-a516-ab2a-dafb97df4464%40postgrespro.ru#90261791-b731-a516-ab2a-dafb97df4...@postgrespro.ru
W dniu 16.09.2017 o 12:43, Tomas Vondra pisze:
> On 09/16/2017 11:57 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'M NOT POSTGRES HACKER. THIS IS JUST NA INTUITION.
>>
>>
>> W dniu 15.09.2017 o 21:30, Christopher Browne pisze:
>>> On 15 September 2017 at 14:45, Adam Brusselback
>>>
On 09/16/2017 11:57 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
>
> I'M NOT POSTGRES HACKER. THIS IS JUST NA INTUITION.
>
>
> W dniu 15.09.2017 o 21:30, Christopher Browne pisze:
>> On 15 September 2017 at 14:45, Adam Brusselback
>> wrote:
>
> [---]
>>
>> b)
W dniu 16.09.2017 o 09:33, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais pisze:
>
[-]
>
> I wrote something about this some years ago, this might do the trick for you,
> maybe with some adjustments depending on your schema. The main idea should
> help anyway. See:
>
>
I'M NOT POSTGRES HACKER. THIS IS JUST NA INTUITION.
W dniu 15.09.2017 o 21:30, Christopher Browne pisze:
> On 15 September 2017 at 14:45, Adam Brusselback
> wrote:
[---]
>
> b) Referencing which index entries can be dropped (e.g. - vacuumed out)
>
W dniu 15.09.2017 o 21:30, Christopher Browne pisze:
> On 15 September 2017 at 14:45, Adam Brusselback
> wrote:
>>> I cannot image a single postgres index covering more than one physical
>>> table. Are you really asking for that?
>>
>>
>> While not available yet, that
Le 14 septembre 2017 19:11:19 GMT+02:00, Rafal Pietrak a
écrit :
>
>
>W dniu 14.09.2017 o 15:54, Merlin Moncure pisze:
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Rafal Pietrak
>wrote:
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> Can anybody help me find a way to implement an ID
14 matches
Mail list logo