On 11/06/10 23:38, David Jarvis wrote:
I added an explicit cast in the SQL:
dateserial(extract(YEAR FROM
m.taken)::int,'||p_month1||','||p_day1||') d1,
dateserial(extract(YEAR FROM
m.taken)::int,'||p_month2||','||p_day2||') d2
The function now takes three integer parameters;
Hi,
We had a little chat about this with Magnus. It's pretty surprising that
there's no built-in function to do this, we should consider adding one.
I agree; you should be able to create a timestamp or a date from integer
values. Others, apparently, have written code. The implementation I did
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis thanga...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We had a little chat about this with Magnus. It's pretty surprising that
there's no built-in function to do this, we should consider adding one.
I agree; you should be able to create a timestamp or a date from integer
Any more idea, please.
Is table partition a good solution for query optimization?
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Amit Khandekar
amit.khande...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 10 June 2010 18:47, AI Rumman rumman...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using Postgresql 8.1 and did not find FETCH_COUNT
Oh
Whenever I run this query, I get out of memory error:
explain analyze
*select *
email_track.count AS Emails_Access_Count,
activity.subject AS Emails_Subject,
crmentity.crmid AS EntityId_crmentitycrmid
*from *
(select * from crmentity where deleted = 0 and createdtime between (now() -
interval '6
Can you provide these details
work_mem
How much physical memory there is on your system
Most out of memory errors are associated with a high work_mem setting
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:25 AM, AI Rumman rumman...@gmail.com wrote:
Whenever I run this query, I get out of memory error:
explain
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
We could have a function like:
construct_timestamp(year int4, month int4, date int4, hour int4, minute
int4, second int4, milliseconds int4, timezone text)
This fails to allow specification to the microsecond level (and note
that
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis thanga...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
year)? This could be potentially confusing:
How so? If it does named parameters, why not all?
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis thanga...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
year)? This could be potentially
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... (We presumably want
timezone to default to the system timezone setting, but I wonder how
we should make that work --- should an empty string be treated as
meaning that?)
Umm.
Hi,
It's not immediately obvious what the default value of timezone
will be?
The system's locale, like now(); documentation can clarify.
By named parameter, I meant default value. You could construct a timestamp
variable using:
construct_timestamp( year := 1900, hour := 1 )
When I read
Hello
I think this SQL returns the following error.
ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table email_track
LINE 3: email_track.count AS Emails_Access_Count,
^
For a fact ,this SQL does not have the email_trac table in from-clause.
1)Is this SQL right?
2)If the SQL is right, can you
PostgreSQL can't currently avoid reading the table, because that's
where the tuple visibility information is stored. We've been making
progress toward having some way to avoid reading the table for all
except very recently written tuples, but we're not there yet (in any
production version or
13 matches
Mail list logo
