[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitri Bichko) writes:
> I am running in trouble with pagination here, somehow (rather naively) I
> assumed that when doing a LIMIT and OFFSET, the subselects on the records
> before the OFFSET would not be performed, which quite apparently is not the
> case. So, LIMIT 50 OFFSE
hi all,
i am using PostgreSQL 7.3.2 on redhat linux 9.
there is problem when executing pl/pg sql functions.
if the function enter an infinite loop. the server is hanged.
cannot cancel the query.
the linux itself is hanged.i cannot kill postgres process.
i have to reboot the machine manually..
waite
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, FET wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> I have a stored procedure that drops table A and then creates table A
> again. The table A has no constraints on any columns. When I execute
> the stored procedure by saying: SELECT sp_myproc(); It gives me an
> error saying : Relation 68428 does
Dnia 2003-11-28 22:57, Użytkownik Tom Lane napisał:
Restructure planning of nestloop inner indexscans so that the set
of usable joinclauses is determined accurately for each join.
Formerly, the code only considered joinclauses that used all of the
rels from the outer side of the join; thus for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Piker) writes:
> Now as some other user one can do:
>update data set stuff = 'other stuff';
> And it works okay. But the following fails:
>update data set stuff = 'yet other stuff' where id = 1;
> Why is this?
Because the latter requires reading, not only writin
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's much better now (10x faster), but I've just found this plan still
> isn't as I want to have. I wish I could have index usage on both fields,
FWIW, I see this plan in 7.4 using your original test case:
Nested Loop (cost=22.51..71.79 rows=1 width=
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 18:37:41 -0500,
"Burr, Colin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, even though the new record failed to be inserted into the table,
> the sequence generator was still updated.
>
> The sequence generator should only be updated if the record is successfully
> inserted i
> tables but it introduces too much overhead. In any case, we need the return
> value (or an exception) from the function but there does not seem a way to
> return it.
Can't you use erreport() to return an exception message?
---(end of broadcast)-
Dnia 2003-11-28 20:52, Użytkownik Tom Lane napisał:
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If I add "and k.id_trasy=lt.id_trasy" into where clause (duplicate), the
query works fine.
Define "works fine", please (again, EXPLAIN ANALYZE would be a nice
concrete description).
Sorry, I thought th
I just installed v7.4 and restored a database from v7.3.4. I have an
index based on a function that the planner is using on the old version,
but doing seq scans on left joins in the new version. I have run
analyze on the table post restore. the query returns in less than 1
second on version 7
I have run across a problem while creating a database with row level
permission
checking via views and triggers. The just of which is update does not
work
for a user unless they also have select permissions. Select
permissions are handled with a view, while insert, update and delete
permissions a
Dear Sir,
I found a sequence generator software bug associated with duplicate key
inserts that may be of interest to you.
I first created a table with a primary key based on a sequence generator.
The following script provides an example.
CREATE SEQUENCE "id_seq" start 1 increment 1 maxvalue 21474
Hello Friends,
I have the following questions.
I have a lot of fields in my database that are int or float.
The problem is that I need them to be only positive (unsigned) and the
users try to insert sometimes negative.
I know that I can make this with CHECK CONSTRAINT but for some reasons
this i
Hi everybody,
I have a stored procedure that drops table A and then creates table A
again. The table A has no constraints on any columns. When I execute
the stored procedure by saying: SELECT sp_myproc(); It gives me an
error saying : Relation 68428 does not exist.
When I remove the CREATE FUNCTIO
>> Here, this link should help:
>>
>> Search PostgreSQL - Opera
>> http://www.postgresql.org/search.cgi?q=connectby
>
> Thanks...rtfm I know :)
RTFM? Oh, yeah, that's right -- Read The /FUNNY/ Manual! =D
--
Randolf Richardson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vancouver, British
We have an interesting case where we want to use Postgres both as a database
and a front end to a proprietary database. For the latter, we wrote
functions that access the proprietary database. Then we defined views on the
proprietary database and wrote rules for insert/update/delete on those views
I recently noticed a behaviour which seems quite suboptimal - I am
working on a "mart" type application, which in practice means I end up
with queries which have a few filters on several central tables, and
then a few dozen subselects for other info (which seems to perform
better than several dozen
I have found it in documentation, it is single quote. But it does not
explain why
SELECT '1/11/2003' AS "InvoiceDate";
returns "unknown" data type instead of "date".
"nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What is correct character to quote date values in SELECT. I
What is correct character to quote date values in SELECT. Is is single
quote?
When I do:
SELECT '1/11/2003' AS "InvoiceDate";
the returned value is of unknown type (not a date).
Then I tried:
SELECT 1/11/2003 AS "InvoiceDate";
and the InvoiceDate was set to zero (I guess the engine divided th
[sNip]
>> bearing in mind that this index can be used with queries that contain
>> WHERE conditions like "create_date >= some-date-constant". The planner
>> must be able to convince itself that the right-hand side of the WHERE
>> condition is >= the cutoff in the index's predicate condition. Sinc
If you want an explicit date, then cast it like this:
SELECT '1/11/2003'::date AS "InvoiceDate";
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: (416) 441-9085
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailt
Hello group,
I'm looking for a neat way to accomplish the following with PostgreSQL. In
a table, I have a group of records for which I want to store an order. The
order has nothing to do with the data of the records; on the contrary, the
order of the records might change without the (other) dat
> As subj says. A simple menu is defined in a table. But how to extract
> it? Heres the deal:
>
> Table menu has these 3 columns: menuidparentmenudesc
>
> Ok this should be easy right? Those menu-rows that has parent=0 is
> "toplevel". And so forth. An example:
>
> 10"Items"
> 2
Thanks, I learnt to use:
SELECT CAST('1/11/2003' AS DATE) AS invoice_number;
and it does what I would expect ;-).
"Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
> > nobody wrote:
> > > I have found it in documentation
>> You're in need of the "CONNECT BY" option which is ideal for
>> scenarios such as yours. Unfortunately PostgreSQL doesn't have it
>> yet, but I believe there is a PLSQL script (or something like this)
>> which emulates the CONNECT BY behaviour and it's called "connectby()"
>> or something l
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I add "and k.id_trasy=lt.id_trasy" into where clause (duplicate), the
> query works fine.
Define "works fine", please (again, EXPLAIN ANALYZE would be a nice
concrete description).
regards, tom lane
--
Dnia 2003-11-28 20:18, Użytkownik Tom Lane napisał:
Hard to say much when you didn't actually show us the output of EXPLAIN
ANALYZE.
OK, Here you are:
explain analyze select *
from plany pl
join linia_trasy lt using (id_linii)
join kursy k on (k.id_trasy=lt.id_trasy and
k.event_date=pl.begind
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Postgres doesn't use join on these both fields and doesn't use index
> scan properly.
Hard to say much when you didn't actually show us the output of EXPLAIN
ANALYZE.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcas
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In 7.4 you could use an array. It would look like this:
Though note that 7.4 doesn't know how to optimize this form:
db=> explain select * from foo where foo_id in (1,2);
QUERY PLAN
29 matches
Mail list logo
