"Poul L. Christiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I convert the characters - e.g. ø will be converted to ø When I
> do a search, i just replace the search string the same way. The only
> problem that could arise is when people search for the word "slash", but
> I guess you could avoid searc
| | The very next vacuum I do produces the exact same response. The next one
| | after that though continues..
|
| And as another side note :) ...
|
| vacuum some_table (without the analyze) completes quite happily.
Grr! There must be a law against replying to so many of your own messages...
| | I've upgraded to 7.0.3, now I get...
| |
| | c2net=> vacuum verbose analyze some_table;
| | NOTICE: --Relation some_table--
| |
| | It's been sitting like that for about half an hour now. There's only
| | about 3000 records in that table.
|
| As a side note, when I ^C the vacuum I get..
| | (Marc hasn't officially announced 7.0.3 yet, but to the best of my
| | knowledge the release-candidate tarballs currently available from our
| | FTP server will be it.)
|
| I've upgraded to 7.0.3, now I get...
|
| c2net=> vacuum verbose analyze some_table;
| NOTICE: --Relation some_table--
| > A vacuum without the analyze gives the error
| > ERROR: No one parent tuple was found
|
| I think you might be getting bit by the same bug that was biting Alfred
| Perlstein a month or so back. Try 7.0.3 and see if it's any better...
| if not, let me know and we'll probe deeper.
|
| (Marc
Just a few suggestions
(1) Make sure you have run the VACUUM ANALYZE command on the table
(i.e. VACUUM ANALYZE tipo_categoria)
(2) Try running the following 3 commands, and comparing the total costs to
see which is cheaper (an index scan is *not* always best). If the
sequential scan is cheaper,
I want to store prices in a table. What's the best way to do this (since
'money' is deprecated)?
What do 'precision' and 'decimal' mean for the numeric type?
Tom,
I've tried like you said (::integer) but doesn't work. I tried another
way, using GROUP BY at the end, but no luck again. What now?
Table "prog_teste"
Attribute| Type | Modifier
-+--+--
cod_teste | integer | not n
- Original Message -
From: Martin A. Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 8:36 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] TEXT and BLOBS
> I want to find out how confused I am. ;-)
> I'm testing something on a Postgres 7.0.2 database. I made a small table
wi
Philip Hallstrom writes:
> I recently tried to start postmaster (7.0.2) with -B 128 -N 64 and
> got the "semget failed" error. Looking in the faq[1] it says I need to
> increase the amount allowed in the kernel. It tells me what I need to do,
> but my question is what values should I set
> * Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001109 20:37] wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, that's what I've seen... I guess I was wondering if there were any
> > guidelines to raising them.. I mean should I up the defaults by 10? Or
> > up them by a percentage (to keep the relationship), etc...
>
> here's w
Nelio Alves Pereira Filho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried to do the following query, but it doesn't work.
> IFX=> select 1 IN (SELECT 1 UNION SELECT 2);
> ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "union"
Not supported currently. 7.1 will handle it...
regards, tom lan
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> There is a TODO item to cause the postmaster always to adopt the LOCALE
> settings that were in force when initdb ran, but it doesn't seem to be
> very high priority for anyone... for now, just be careful.
>
> regards, tom lane
i've done some more tes
Mathieu Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I ran into trouble with all my indexes when i upgraded postgresql from
> 7.0.2 to 7.0.2 with locales. I did not really found where the problem
> was but the indexes created before were messing un all the queries using
> them.
> The thing i did was drop/
"Vilson farias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sitest=# CREATE TABLE tipo_categoria (
> sitest(#cod_categoriasmallint NOT NULL,
> sitest(#descricaovarchar(40),
> sitest(#CONSTRAINT XPKtipo_categoria PRIMARY KEY (cod_categoria)
> sitest(#
> sitest(# );
>
"Oliver Elphick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are actually doing a 3-way join, with linia included twice.
> It is implicitly included a second time when a column is referenced
> from it without the alias.
7.1 will provide a NOTICE that's intended to alert people that such
constructs probably
I tried to do the following query, but it doesn't work.
IFX=> select 1 IN (SELECT 1 UNION SELECT 2);
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "union"
Are there and syntax error? What is wrong about that??
Thanks
--
Nelio Alves Pereira Filho
IFX Networks
Sao Paulo / Brazil
Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:
>I have PSQL 7.02
>
>classic join on Two tables:
>
>select l.id from linia l,lk_strefa2linia lk
>where l.id = lk.fk_linia and lk.fk_strefa=5;
>
>gives correct linia.ids.
>
>but
>select linia.id from linia l,lk_strefa2linia lk
>where l.id = lk.fk_l
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:16:47AM -0200, Vilson farias wrote:
> result of execution is a sequencial scan, but this is a PRIMARY KEY, it does
> has an index. How can it be explained?
If you wish use index, then you need include ORDER BY clause. AFAIK
two SELECTs on same data without ORDER BY _CAN
Just another question : Does foreign has a automatic created index, like
primary keys?
- Original Message -
From: Vilson farias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: SIMONE Carla MOSENA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sexta-feira, 10 de Novembro de 2000 10:16
Subject: [GENERAL] Sequen
Hi
I ran into trouble with all my indexes when i upgraded postgresql from
7.0.2 to 7.0.2 with locales. I did not really found where the problem
was but the indexes created before were messing un all the queries using
them.
The thing i did was drop/create with my indexes, but it shouldn't be
neces
Hello,
I need help in case below. My table tipo_categoria has a primary key,
called cod_categoria When I use this key as parameter for my sql script, the
result of execution is a sequencial scan, but this is a PRIMARY KEY, it does
has an index. How can it be explained?
sitest=# CREATE TAB
Whoa! Shit! I'm working on a system which probably will use ALOT of
semaphores and mutexes. Is this the limits, <1000? I was hoping for
millions. I have asked around but no-one I have asked seems to know the
answer.
I'm using pthreads on Linux right now but will probably use HP-UX, AIX,
True64 or
Hi
I have the following two queries:
1) select count(*) from mappings where substring(virtual from 1 for 1) = '@';
2) select count(*) from mappings where virtual like '@%';
both should do the same thing - give me a count of virtual which starts with '@'.
however, the results returned are diffe
I have PSQL 7.02
classic join on Two tables:
select l.id from linia l,lk_strefa2linia lk
where l.id = lk.fk_linia and lk.fk_strefa=5;
gives correct linia.ids.
but
select linia.id from linia l,lk_strefa2linia lk
where l.id = lk.fk_linia and lk.fk_strefa=5;
(the only difference is second word:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:55:32PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> options SHMMAXPGS=512000
> options SHMSEG=128
> options SEMMNI=40 # /* # of semaphore identifiers */
> options SEMMNS=240 # /* # of semaphores in system */
> options S
Gunnar R|nning wrote:
>
> "Poul L. Christiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I chose to use a 3rd party product (Verity) for full text indexing even
> > though I would prefer to use PostgreSQL for fti.
>
> How is the support for Danish in Verity now ?
I convert the characters - e.g. ø w
27 matches
Mail list logo
