On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:44 PM Thiemo Kellner
wrote:
> 13.02.2025 10:54:05 Achilleas Mantzios - cloud <
> a.mantz...@cloud.gatewaynet.com>:
>
> > If we followed a strict normalized approach then we would create
> additionally 11 tables each tag of type c) . And we are not guaranteed that
> the s
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:02 AM Michał Kłeczek wrote:
> Create index concurrently and then fiddle with the catalog tables to
> define the constraint using this index?
>
You mean an ALTER TABLE ... ADD CONSTRAINT ... EXCLUDE without actually
doing an ALTER TABLE. Nope, that's far worse than the p
On 2/14/25 11:34, Allan Kamau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:44 PM Thiemo Kellner
wrote:
13.02.2025 10:54:05 Achilleas Mantzios - cloud
:
> If we followed a strict normalized approach then we would create
additionally 11 tables each tag of type c) . And we are not
gu
On 2/13/25 20:44, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
13.02.2025 10:54:05 Achilleas Mantzios - cloud
:
If we followed a strict normalized approach then we would create additionally
11 tables each tag of type c) . And we are not guaranteed that the same tags
would have the same structure over the whole f
On 2/13/25 19:12, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 2/13/25 01:53, Achilleas Mantzios - cloud wrote:
Now my problem is on the design . We have :
a) tags that have primitive values, float4 lets say - this is the
majority, e.g. 60% of all tags
b) tags that contain alarms data also with defined structu
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:06 PM Marcelo Fernandes
wrote:
> > It's technically possible to do something similar for your use case, but
> it's not trivial. All the cab to trailer wires must be precisely changed.
> Everything directly related to the data must be swapped: heap, indexes,
> toast.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:41 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> Moreover, you have to make sure to send out invalidation messages so that
> every session that caches statistics or
> execution plans for the tables discards them.
Hmm...is that really necessary? Because if so, there is no direct SQL-level
