Can someone please explain how I can make this sub-query faster? In
the case below, 'test' is a temporary table but I have tried with test
being a full, indexed, and 'vacuum analysed' table and it still takes
more than 130 seconds. Note that 'test' has very few rows but
'cal_quat_1' has many
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:39:01PM -0600, Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
> Does an index get created for a Primary Key or is it just a constraint?
Yes, an unique btree index.
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
"La Primavera ha venido. Nadie sabe como ha sido" (A. Machado)
---(end of broadcast)
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The original simple SQL -
> > select distinct atcode from TMP order by torder;
>
> This is not "simple", it is "broken SQL with an undefined result".
>
> If DISTINCT merges multiple rows with the same atcode, how a
Diogo Biazus wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
Diogo Biazus wrote:
Hi folks,
Does anyone has an idea of a more cost eficient solution?
How to get a better performance without having to invest some
astronomicaly high amount of money?
This isn't hardware related, but FreeBSD 5 is not a particularly
impr
Not that this is the issue, but what kind of tool where you using to get
your results back with this "other" database? Sometimes these fancy GUI
tools like to be smart on you and order things based on something it feels
is correct giving you the impression that the database choose the order
when
John DeSoi wrote:
I have a security model I have implemented in another (non-SQL) database
environment that I would like to use in Postgresql. I have read the
rules and set returning functions documentation but I still don't see
how it would work in Postgresql. Any ideas or direction would be g
William White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can't think of an equally succinct definition of what the operators
>> really do though. Comments?
> I think "not to the left of" and "not to the right of" are sufficiently
> succinct. That they may not see much user application m
Done too :)
Hum! IMHO not so many people because when I click PG went from 16% to 17%
immediately.
Bernard
On Wednesday 31 March 2004 14:09, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Done :)
>
> Guys ... poll now shows 53% for MaxDB (ie. MySQL) and 15% for PostgreSQL
> ... think we can improve on that? :)
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Right, but what about the existing operators --- what is a more correct
way to document them?
Ouch.
Appealing to J.F. Allen's terminology ("An Interval-Based Representation
of Temporal Knowledge", Comm ACM 26(11) 832-43), overleft could be
called "left or finishes" (implying all
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William Reese wrote:
> As you can see, what is blocking, is the ShareLock on
> the transaction. After reading through the code, I
> realized that this is the intended behavior for
> updates and deletes to the same row. In this case,
> it's the "select for update" query that'
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, John Liu wrote:
> I know this is an old topic, but it's not easy to find a way around it, so
> when we migrate SQL from other database to PostgreSQL, it causes a huge
> headache. Here's an extremely simple example -
>
> The original simple SQL -
> select distinct atcode from T
William White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps document as S &< T iff S "does not extend to the right
> of/beyond" (the right boundary of) T?
"Does not extend to the right of" works for me, unless someone on the
list has got a better idea ...
regards, tom lane
-
Does an index get created for a Primary Key or is it just a constraint?
Thanks,
ThomasLL
_
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm0
I see that only table documentos has a unique index. Is it really so
that none of the other tables has a key to uniquely identify a record?
Perhaps the others have a unique attribute but it was never declared
when forming the index?
I do not remember which version of PostgreSQL you are using, but
Dann Corbit wrote:
I see that only table documentos has a unique index. Is it really so
that none of the other tables has a key to uniquely identify a record?
Perhaps the others have a unique attribute but it was never declared
when forming the index?
I thougth that a primary key would create
> -Original Message-
> From: Diogo Biazus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:02 AM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Wich hardware suits best for large
> full-text indexed databases
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> >I see that on
Tom Lane wrote:
Good point. You can force it by setting enable_seqscan to false, but
otherwise it's unlikely to happen.
Ah, didn't know about enable_seqscan, thanks.
It seems to me that the operator rtree actually wants is best thought of
as "is not to right of" (resp. "is not to left of"). The
"John Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The original simple SQL -
> select distinct atcode from TMP order by torder;
This is not "simple", it is "broken SQL with an undefined result".
If DISTINCT merges multiple rows with the same atcode, how are we
supposed to know which row's value of torder t
Done :)
Guys ... poll now shows 53% for MaxDB (ie. MySQL) and 15% for PostgreSQL
... think we can improve on that? :)
http://www.casestudio.com
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Martin Marques wrote:
> El Mar 30 Mar 2004 11:13, Marc G. Fournier escribió:
> > MaxDB - 62%
> > PostgreSQL - 13%
>
> If you thr
Tom Lane wrote:
It'd need to be
S &< T iff inf(S) <= sup(T)
to satisfy the geometrical intuition. (You could quibble about the
equality case, but box_overlap seems to consider touching boxes to
overlap, so for consistency this should too.)
However, if this is indeed wrong, why have we not hear
On Wednesday 31 March 2004 18:50, John Liu wrote:
> I know this is an old topic, but it's not easy to find a way around it, so
> when we migrate SQL from other database to PostgreSQL, it causes a huge
> headache. Here's an extremely simple example -
>
> The original simple SQL -
> select distinct a
I have a security model I have implemented in another (non-SQL)
database environment that I would like to use in Postgresql. I have
read the rules and set returning functions documentation but I still
don't see how it would work in Postgresql. Any ideas or direction would
be greatly appreciated
Hello All,
I built PostgreSQL 7.4.2 on HPUX IPF platform. It works fine. But
when I start the postmaster, I got
the following LOG message:
LOG: could not resolve "localhost": host nor service provided, or not known
$ postmaster -D /var/opt/iexpress/postgresql &
[1] 8995
Using an OR or IN query seems to be orders of magnitudes slower than
running a query twice. There is an unique index on 'id' and an index on
'model_ns, model'. The number of row returned is less than 800.
Everything is vacuumed and analyzed. Running on 7.4.1. Perhaps this
situation is something the
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:48:14 -0800, "Mooney, Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I have a single table that just went over 234GB in size with about 290M+
>rows.
That would mean ~ 800 bytes/row which, given your schema, is hard to
believe unless there are lots of dead tuples lying around.
>queries u
Hello,
I'm rather confused about the logic of something in the rtree code, perhaps
someone can provide some insight here. Without loss of generality I'll
use intervals on R (real number line) below, but this would apply to
boxes as well. Note that sup(S) and inf(S) are the upper and lower bound
26 matches
Mail list logo
