I have an integer column that is not needed for some rows in the table
(whether it is necessary is a factor of other row attributes, and it
isn't worth putting in a separate table).
What are the performance tradeoffs (storage space, query speed) of using
a NULL enabled column versus a NOT-NULL col
Jeffrey Tenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the performance tradeoffs (storage space, query speed) of using
> a NULL enabled column versus a NOT-NULL column with a sentinel integer
> value?
> Not that it matters, but in the event where the column values matter,
> the numberic value is a
Hi,
I am a recent convert to Postgresql, and am trying to tune a very slow query
across ten tables all with only a few rows at this stage (<20), and was
looking for some help to get me out of a dead-end.
It runs very slowly both on a hosted Postgresql 7.3.4 server running on
FreeBSD UNIX box, a
"Guenzl, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the latter, the EXPLAIN ANALYZE returned what I thought was a strange
> result - here is the excerpt ...
Do you think we are psychics who can guess at your problem when you've
shown us none of the table definitions, none of the query, and only a
sm
LOL ... Excuse my ignorance but what's Karnak headear?
It's a SELECT statement. There are no foreign-keys, just primary keys and
indexes (some clustered). All joins are through integers / big integers
(since anything beginning with id_ is either an integer or big integer).
The intention of show
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 16:45:18 +1100,
"Guenzl, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LOL ... Excuse my ignorance but what's Karnak headear?
Jonny Carson used to do sketches on the Tonight show where he was Karnak
and would give answers to questions in sealed envelopes which would later
be read
