Hi,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-json.html
> jsonb @@ jsonpath → boolean
>
> Returns the result of a JSON path predicate check for the specified JSON
> value. Only the first item of the result is taken into account. If the
> result is not Boolean, then NULL is returned.
>
> '{
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>
>> *Summary*
>>
>> My tests show that, when a WITHOUT HOLD cursor has to cache results (see
>> Note 1), then the WHERE clause (if present) is stripped off the cursor's
>> defining SELECT statement and the entire unrestricted
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 12:35 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> **Summary**
>
> My tests show that, when a WITHOUT HOLD cursor has to cache results (see
> Note 1), then the WHERE clause (if present) is stripped off the cursor's
> defining SELECT statement and the entire unrestricted result set is cached
*Summary*
My tests show that, when a WITHOUT HOLD cursor has to cache results (see Note
1), then the WHERE clause (if present) is stripped off the cursor's defining
SELECT statement and the entire unrestricted result set is cached. But when a
WITH HOLD cursor is used, then it’s the *restricted*
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Siddharth Jain writes:
> > I think the two are equivalent. If not, could you please explain why?
>
> Well, they're formally equivalent if you require there to be only one
> X value per partition (ie, PARTITION BY LIST with only one listed value
>
Siddharth Jain writes:
> I think the two are equivalent. If not, could you please explain why?
Well, they're formally equivalent if you require there to be only one
X value per partition (ie, PARTITION BY LIST with only one listed value
per partition); if there's more, they're not the same thing.
Afraid so. You can wait longer, I guess. You may have found two bugs… the lack
of an interrupt in the dbscan loop, which I’m working on now. And maybe an
infinite looping case? In which case if you want a fix on that, you’ll have to
share your data and query.
P.
> On Mar 31, 2023, at 7:41 AM,
Thanks Laurenz.
I think the two are equivalent. If not, could you please explain why?
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:46 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 17:05 -0700, Siddharth Jain wrote:
> > I have this question. Say I create a partitioned table on column X.
> >
> > Option 1:
> >
> >
> On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 13:46 +, Arnaud Lesauvage wrote:
> > I have a long running query that I seem unable to either cancel or
> terminate.
> > What could be the reason for this, and what is the bet way to terminate
> this kind of query ?
> >
> > The query is a CTE using postgis ST_ClusterDBSC
On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 13:46 +, Arnaud Lesauvage wrote:
> I have a long running query that I seem unable to either cancel or terminate.
> What could be the reason for this, and what is the bet way to terminate this
> kind of query ?
>
> The query is a CTE using postgis ST_ClusterDBSCAN functi
On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 17:05 -0700, Siddharth Jain wrote:
> I have this question. Say I create a partitioned table on column X.
>
> Option 1:
>
> I add a primary key on (X,Y). Y is another column. Even though Y is a
> globally unique PK (global meaning it is unique across partitions, not just
>
Hi all,
I have a long running query that I seem unable to either cancel or terminate.
What could be the reason for this, and what is the bet way to terminate this
kind of query ?
The query is a CTE using postgis ST_ClusterDBSCAN function. The CTE returns
approximately 150k rows.
The SQL is as f
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:00 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Dominique Devienne writes:
> > Does the wire-format of arrays differ between binary-binds and
> binary-copy?
>
> No.
>
An update on this, I think I figure it out, by comparing with COPY TO
STDOUT WITH (FORMAT BINARY).
I was missing the byte-coun
13 matches
Mail list logo
