Andrew Lazarus a écrit :
Jamal Ghaffour wrote:
CREATE TABLE cookies (
domain varchar(50) NOT NULL,
path varchar(50) NOT NULL,
name varchar(50) NOT NULL,
principalid varchar(50) NOT NULL,
host text NOT NULL,
value text NOT NULL,
secure bool NOT NULL,
timestamp timestamp
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:32:10 +0100
Jamal Ghaffour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using the default configuration file, and i m asking if i have to
> change some paramters to have a good performance.
In general the answer is yes. The default is a pretty good best guess
at what sorts of valu
OIDs seem to be on their way out, and most of the time you can get a
more helpful result by using a serial primary key anyway, but I wonder
if there's any extension to INSERT to help identify what unique id a
newly-inserted key will get? Using OIDs the insert would return the OID
of the inserted r
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:10:11PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> Are there plans on updating the insert API for the post-OID world?
Are you looking for this TODO item?
* Allow INSERT/UPDATE ... RETURNING new.col or old.col
This is useful for returning the auto-generated key for an INSERT.
On
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:10 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> OIDs seem to be on their way out, and most of the time you can get a
> more helpful result by using a serial primary key anyway, but I wonder
> if there's any extension to INSERT to help identify what unique id a
> newly-inserted key will ge
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:29:15PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
There's really no additional operations required:
INSERT INTO t2 VALUES (currval('t1_id_seq'), ...);
You need a separate SELECT if you want to use the generated sequence
value outside the database,
That would, of course, be the goal.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:30:58PM +0100, Bendik Rognlien Johansen wrote:
> The sort is definitively the culprit. When I removed it the query was
> instant. I tried setting work_mem = 131072 but it did not seem to
> help. I really don't understand this :-( Any other ideas?
What's explain analy
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:33:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've got a set-returning function, defined as STABLE, that I reference
> > twice
> > within a single query, yet appears to be evaluated via two seperate
> > function
> > scans.
>
> There i
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:35:07PM +0100, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> Ott? Havasv?lgyi wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Is PostgreSQL able to throw unnecessary joins?
> >For example I have two tables, and I join then with their primary keys,
> >say type of bigint . In this case if I don't reference to on
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:51:22PM +0100, Ott? Havasv?lgyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If the join is to a primary key or notnull unique column(s), then
> inner join is also ok. But of course left join is the simpler case.
> An example:
Actually, you need both the unique/pk constraint, and RI (a fact I
miss
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the issue that the optimizer won't combine two function calls (ie:
> SELECT foo(..) ... WHERE foo(..)), or is it that sometimes it won't make
> the optimization (maybe depending on the query plan, for example)?
What the STABLE category actually does
Adding -docs...
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:27:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is the issue that the optimizer won't combine two function calls (ie:
> > SELECT foo(..) ... WHERE foo(..)), or is it that sometimes it won't make
> > the optimization (maybe
Jean-Philippe Cote wrote:
>
>
> Can I actully know whether a given plan is excuted with GEQO on ?
> In other words, if I launch 'explain ', I'll get a given plan, but if
> I re-launch
> the (withtout the 'explain' keyword), could I get a different
> plan given that GEQO induces some randomness
We have to inserts a records(15000- 2) into a table which also
contains (15000-2) records, then after insertion, we have to delete
the records according to a business rule.
Above process is taking place in a transaction and we are using batches
of 128 to insert records.
Everything works fi
Suppose a table with structure:
Table "public.t4"
Column | Type | Modifiers
+---+---
c1 | character(10) | not null
c2 | character(6) | not null
c3 | date | not null
c4 | character(30) |
c5 | numeric(10,2) | not null
Indexes:
Hi,
I'm running version 8.1 on a dedicated Sun v20 server (2 AMD x64's)
with 4Gb of RAM. I have recently noticed that the performance of
some more complex queries is extremely variable and irregular.
For example, I currently have a query that returns a small number
of rows (5) by joining a dozen
Hi ,
I am having problem optimizing this query, Postgres optimizer uses a
plan which invloves seq-scan on a table. And when I choose a option to
disable seq-scan it uses index-scan and obviously the query is much faster.
All tables are daily vacummed and analyzed as per docs.
Why can
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:48:41AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 22:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean-Philippe_C=F4t=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Thanks a lot for this info, I was indeed exceeding the genetic
> > > optimizer's threshold. Now that it is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:23:14PM -0500, Jean-Philippe Cote wrote:
>
>
> Can I actully know whether a given plan is excuted with GEQO on ?
> In other words, if I launch 'explain ', I'll get a given plan, but if
> I re-launch
> the (withtout the 'explain' keyword), could I get a different
> pla
19 matches
Mail list logo
