Re: [SQL] large xml database

Skipping much of the included thread, urgently. btw. you have mentioned "This I believe would parse nicely into a tidy but non-trivial schema directly", does it mean that postgre has a support for restoring the database schema from xml files? -- --- Viktor

Re: [SQL] large xml database

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > Viktor Bojović wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Sargent > robjsarg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>Viktor Bojovic' wrote: >> >> >> >>On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM, James Cloos >>mailto:cl...@j

Re: [SQL] large xml database

Viktor Bojović wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Sargent > wrote: Viktor Bojovic' wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM, James Cloos mailto:cl...@jhcloos.com> >> wr

Re: [SQL] large xml database

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > > > > Viktor Bojovic' wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM, James Cloos > cl...@jhcloos.com>> wrote: >> >>> "VB" == Viktor Bojovic' > >>> writes: >> >>VB> i have very big XML documm

Re: [SQL] large xml database

Viktor Bojovic' wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM, James Cloos > wrote: > "VB" == Viktor Bojovic' mailto:viktor.bojo...@gmail.com>> writes: VB> i have very big XML documment which is larger than 50GB and want to VB> import it into databse

Re: [SQL] large xml database

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM, James Cloos wrote: > > "VB" == Viktor Bojović writes: > > VB> i have very big XML documment which is larger than 50GB and want to > VB> import it into databse, and transform it to relational schema. > > Were I doing such a conversion, I'd use perl to convert

Re: [SQL] large xml database

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Lutz Steinborn wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:49:29 +0200 > Viktor Bojović wrote: > > > > > many tries have failed because 8GB of ram and 10gb of swap were not > enough. > > also sometimes i get that more than 2^32 operations were performed, and > > functions sto

Re: [SQL] A more efficient way?

James Cloos writes: > I've a third-party app which is slower than it ought to be. > It does one operation in particular by doing a query to get a list of > rows, and then iterates though them to confirm whether it actually wants > that row. As you can imagine that is very slow. > This query gets

[SQL] A more efficient way?

I've a third-party app which is slower than it ought to be. It does one operation in particular by doing a query to get a list of rows, and then iterates though them to confirm whether it actually wants that row. As you can imagine that is very slow. This query gets the correct data set in one g