One of the possibilities would be to decompose your bitmap into an
array of base integers and then create a GIN (or GIST) index on that
array (intarray contrib package). This would make sense if your
articles are distributed relatively equally and if do not do big ORDER
BY and then LIMIT/OFFSET
On Jul 21, 6:06 am, scott.marl...@gmail.com (Scott Marlowe) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Kradekr...@krade.com wrote:
But I think I might just do:
select * from a where comment_tsv @@ plainto_tsquery('query') and timestamp
cast(floor(extract(epoch from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) - 864000)
On Jun 26, 9:30 pm, goofyheadedp...@gmail.com (Brian Troutwine) wrote:
Hello, all.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION item_data_insert(
iasin TEXT, iauthor TEXT, ibinding TEXT, icurrency_code TEXT,
iisbn TEXT, iheight INTEGER, iwidth INTEGER, ilength INTEGER,
iweight INTEGER,
a permanent table that is truncated
after one set of data is imputed.
I hope this makes sense.
Samantha
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:44 AM, valgog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (samantha mahindrakar)
wrote:
Hi
I have written a program that imputes
On Apr 7, 8:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (samantha mahindrakar)
wrote:
Hi
I have written a program that imputes(or rather corrects data) with in
my database.
Iam using a temporary table where in i put data from other partitoined
table. I then query this table to get the desired data.But the thing
Do not use setString() method to pass the parameter to the
PreparedStatement in JDBC. Construct an SQL query string as you write
it here and query the database with this new SQL string. This will
make the planner to recreate a plan every time for every new SQL
string per session (that is not
versions?
With best regards,
-- Valentine
On Sep 17, 3:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote:
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 2:49 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], valgog
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=20
Are you sure you understood what was the question
Hi,
I could not find and normal solution for that issue. But I am using
some workarounds for that issue.
The solution, that I am using now is to create an index for every bit
of your bitmap field.
So something like
CREATE INDEX idx_hobbybit_0_limited
ON versionA.user_fast_index
USING btree
What about saying?:
TBL1.CATEGORY = TBL2.CATEGORY
Are you sure you understood what was the question?
Is the TBL1.CATEGORY = TBL2.CATEGORY the same as TBL1.CATEGORY
TBL2.CATEGORY 0?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your
On Aug 11, 5:54 pm, Detlef Rudolph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Group,
I've tried the VACUUM ANALYSE, that doesn't help
much, but VACUUM FULL improves Performance down
from about 40 secs to 8. I think in future I would
use the reltuples value from pg_class for the table.
Thanks a lot for
On Jul 25, 2:14 am, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about two indexes, one on each column? Then the indexes will cooperate
when combined in a WHERE clause.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-bitmap-scans.html
I don't believe the index makes a semantic difference with
On Jul 23, 7:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul van den Bogaard)
wrote:
the manual somewhere states ... if archiving is enabled... To me
this implies that archiving can be disabled. However I cannot find
the parameter to use to get this result. Or should I enable archiving
and use a backup script
Hello all,
how to build an multicolumn index with one column order ASCENDING and
another column order DESCENDING?
The use case that I have is that I use 2 column index where the first
column is kind of flag and the second column is an actual ordering
column. The flag should be always ordered
On Jul 23, 7:00 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote:
valgog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
how to build an multicolumn index with one column order ASCENDING and
another column order DESCENDING?
Use 8.3 ;-)
In existing releases you could fake it with a custom reverse-sorting
operator class
Hi,
I have found some discussions about that issue, but did not find the
answer actually.
Is there a way to be sure, that some indexes are alway in memory? My
tests bringing them to the memory based file system (ramfs) tablespace
showed really a very significant performance gain. But a
I found several post about INSERT/UPDATE performance in this group,
but actually it was not really what I am searching an answer for...
I have a simple reference table WORD_COUNTS that contains the count of
words that appear in a word array storage in another table.
CREATE TABLE WORD_COUNTS
(
I have rewritten the code like
existing_words_array := ARRAY( select word
from WORD_COUNTS
where word = ANY
( array_of_words ) );
not_existing_words_array := ARRAY( select distinct_word
On May 22, 12:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PFC) wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:23:03 +0200, valgog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found several post about INSERT/UPDATE performance in this group,
but actually it was not really what I am searching an answer for...
I have a simple reference table
On May 22, 12:00 pm, valgog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have rewritten the code like
existing_words_array := ARRAY( select word
from WORD_COUNTS
where word = ANY
( array_of_words
19 matches
Mail list logo
