Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
para
! Because of the limited utility of hash indexes, a B-tree index
! should generally be preferred over a hash index. We do not have
! sufficient evidence that hash indexes are actually faster than
! B-trees even for
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
para
! Because of the limited utility of hash indexes, a B-tree index
! should generally be preferred over a hash index. We do not have
! sufficient evidence that hash indexes are actually faster than
!
a) The client-side programmer has to be responsible for parsing the
returned string, which could cause problems if the output format of the
ADT is changed, and
You seem to be proposing that we instead expose the internal storage
format of the ADT, which seems to me to be much more likely
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I have finally decided that our archive searching stinks. I have
emails in my mailbox that don't appear in the archives.
Our main site, http://archives.postgresql.org/ doesn't archive the
'patches' list. (It isn't listed on the main site, and
This is all great news. Thanks.
---
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I have finally decided that our archive searching stinks. I have
emails in my mailbox that don't appear in
Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is one possibility, but I think the proposal is to expose the
*support* for the data types to client-side apps.
Ah, I see --- more or less make all of utils/adt/ available to be
linked into clients.
That is a Good Idea in principle. In practice,
Ah, I see --- more or less make all of utils/adt/ available to be
linked into clients.
That is a Good Idea in principle. In practice, ...
Yeah, it'd be a huge amount of work. For starters, all that code
relies on the backend environment for error handling and memory
management...
It
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, which part of is demonstrably false? I think the old should
generally be preferred is too vague. No one has come up with a case
where hash has shown to be faster, and a lot of cases where it is slower.
The only thing I recall
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:14:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I agree it's not pleasant to be blocked like this. Is there any way we
can persuade the bison guys to be a little more urgent about releasing a
fix? (If 1.49 is just an internal beta version, maybe a back-patch to
their last released
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember three problems: build time, index size, and concurrency
problems. I was wondering about the equal key case myself, and assumed
hash may be a win there, but with the concurrency problems, is that even
possible?
Sure. Many-equal-keys are a
damn, I wish ppl would bring stuff like this up earlier :( I've just gone
through the configs, and think the problem(s) are fixed with this ... :(
On 21 Jun 2002, Alessio Bragadini wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 17:07, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Can we find out why the email/news gateway
Hi,
I am about to add code to postgresql that would allow IDENT
authentification with DES encryption (as seen in the pidentd package
included with Redhat - not sure if same encryption is used by other
ident daemons). The code would allow for two types of IDENT
authentification:
ident - this is
Any idea if alter table drop column and background vacuum will be
implemented by 7.3?
It's really critical for large applications that must run 24/7.
Stephen
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister
Hi all,
I'm hacking on PalmOS handhelds to implements libpq
called libpq for PalmOS.
This library provides many compatible libpq functions
to manipulate PostgreSQL server from PalmOS devices
through TCP/IP connection.
Implementation is almost done, but some works are left
to release.
For
Julian Mehnle wrote:
[...] I made a patch.
==8==snip==
[word-wrapped patch]
==snip==8==
Doh!
I swear I told my news reader not to word-wrap exactly this message,
but it wrapped it anyway...
Hi all!
Recently I tried to use the new 7.02.0001 Win32 ODBC driver in the new
(beta) Unicode mode in conjunction with MS Access 2000 and a UNICODE
encoded database stored in a PostgreSQL 7.2.1 database running on a
Linux system.
I noticed that when the LF-CRLF Conversion option is *enabled* in
Rod Taylor wrote:
For some reason a view with a select distinct, an order and an exception
by will cause pg_dump to output a double order by -- one for each select
which of course is bad SQL.
I think views should not have ORDER BY clauses at all in the first
place.
Jan
--
David M. Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am about to add code to postgresql that would allow IDENT
authentification with DES encryption (as seen in the pidentd package
included with Redhat - not sure if same encryption is used by other
ident daemons).
What's the point, exactly?
For local
Dann Corbit wrote:
This change strikes me as a step backwards. The existing
wording tells
the truth; the proposed revision removes the facts in favor
of a blanket
assertion that is demonstrably false.
OK, which part of is demonstrably false? I think the old should
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 11:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about an elog(NOTICE) for hash use?
I don't think that's appropriate.
I was thinking of this during CREATE INDEX ... hash:
NOTICE: Hash index use is
Larry Rosenman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 11:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about an elog(NOTICE) for hash use?
I don't think that's appropriate.
I was thinking of this during CREATE INDEX ... hash:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:52 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Neil Conway; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dann Corbit;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 15:12, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 11:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about an elog(NOTICE) for hash use?
I don't think that's appropriate.
I
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:31 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Tom Lane; Neil Conway; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Dann Corbit wrote:
I was
During the discussion of bools and hash index and partial indexes and
index growth and everything else, I tried to make a partial index on a
bool field and got the error that data type bool has no default operator
for class hash...
So, can I cast something to make this work, or is it possible
I've got patches for the CREATE CAST/DROP CAST feature (just a
rearrangement of our existing function declaration syntax). The SQL99
form assumes that an existing function will be used for the cast
definition, so I've extended the syntax to allow that and to have an
alternate form which
So, is you vote for or against the elog(NOTICE)?
OK, if we are still voting, then I'll mention that I generally dislike
the idea of notices of this kind. And would not like this notice in
particular. So would vote no with both hands ;)
I'm pretty sure that we have a consensus policy (hmm, at
On the other hand, I like hints on how to do things better ;)
David
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
So, is you vote for or against the elog(NOTICE)?
OK, if we are still voting, then I'll mention that I generally dislike
the idea of notices of this kind. And would not like this notice in
I've gone ahead and committed patches for CREATE CAST/DROP CAST, as well
as for a few other SQL99 clauses in other statements. Details below...
- Thomas
Implement SQL99 CREATE CAST and DROP CAST statements.
Also implement alternative forms to expose the PostgreSQL CREATE
Which is whay you RTFM ;)
--On Friday, June 21, 2002 10:10 PM -0400 David Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, I like hints on how to do things better ;)
David
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
So, is you vote for or against the elog(NOTICE)?
OK, if we are still voting, then I'll
to ignore ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Okay, just did a series of upgrades to the server to hopefully speed up
delivery a bit ... 6minutes more reasonable? let's see if it keeps up,
mind you ...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
ignore this one ...
---(end of
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 22:06, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Okay, just did a series of upgrades to the server to hopefully speed up
delivery a bit ... 6minutes more reasonable? let's see if it keeps up,
mind you ...
Thanks, Marc. I assume this is in response to my note about the
multi-hour delay?
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
So, is you vote for or against the elog(NOTICE)?
OK, if we are still voting, then I'll mention that I generally dislike
the idea of notices of this kind. And would not like this notice in
particular. So would vote no with both hands ;)
I'm pretty sure that we have
yup, as well as Francisco's ...
On 21 Jun 2002, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 22:06, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Okay, just did a series of upgrades to the server to hopefully speed up
delivery a bit ... 6minutes more reasonable? let's see if it keeps up,
mind you ...
35 matches
Mail list logo
