Re: [SQL] Delete with join -- deleting related table entries?
I'm not sure if this is true for you as I can't see your complete table definitions, but I'd usually do this by using issue_id INTEGER REFERENCES issue ON DELETE CASCADE in my column definition. See [1] for more information. [1]http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/ddl-constraints.html#DDL-CONSTRAINTS-FK ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [SQL] (NONE)
Your question is not clear at all. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [SQL] regarding debugging?
Checking how your PgSQL statements are executed, can be done using EXPLAIN [1]. EXPLAIN ANALYZE will also execute (but not dry-run!) your statement. I work with a seperate development and production database. Once the changes to the schema in the development DB are done, I commit them to the production DB using ActiveRecord migrations. You could do the same with an advanced schema diff tool such as pgdiff [2] or zongle [3]. - Rowan [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-explain.html [2] http://pgdiff.sourceforge.net/ [3] http://zongle.sourceforge.net/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [SQL] Non Matching Records in Two Tables
You can use an EXCEPT clause. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] unique constraint instead of primary key? what disadvantage(ODBC usage)?
If my tables have one or more UNIQUE constraints/indices, I still add a "id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY" field to most of my tables. This makes referencing easier and faster. It also improves consistency, which is never a bad thing in my opinion. As far as I know, though, PRIMARY KEY does the same thing as UNIQUE NOT NULL in PostgreSQL. The reason that PRIMARY KEY can't be NULL and _has to be_ UNIQUE is that it is the primary means of identifying a given record in a table. If you don't have PRIMARY KEY that is UNIQUE and NOT NULL, how are you going to identify (or reference) individual records? PostgreSQL won't allow you to reference more than one row for what I came to believe are very good reasons. - Rowan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] unique constraint instead of primary key? what
I mean that you can't easily base a foreign key constraint on a field that is not NOT NULL UNIQUE. - Rowan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
