am Wed, dem 14.11.2007, um 15:16:48 +0800 mailte froast folgendes:
> in mysql, I used :"set foreign_key_check = 0;" to disable the foreign key
> check, now I'm trying to migrate from mysql to postgres, how should I do
> to disable it?
You can define the constraints as deferrable. Later you can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/17/07 01:21, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 11/16/07 12:50, João Paulo Zavanela wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> How many fields is recomended to create a primary key?
>>> I'm thinking to create one with 6 fiel
"Reg Me Please" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, in my opinion at least, there's no real reason for the above
> syntax limitation, as the sematics is not.
Is not what? Is not sensible?
> create or replace function f_limoff_1( l int, o int )
> returns setof atable as $$
> select * from at
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In relational algebra terms, try thinking about what would happen if you
>> did something like:
>
>> SELECT * FROM foo LIMIT val;
>
>> Where the table foo has more than one row (and val had different values
>> for
"Abraham, Danny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if I can do in PG Chunck Delete, like the Oracle example
> below.
>
> In Oracle we erase 50,000 records using the following:
>
> Delete where and ROWNUM < 5;
>
> Do we have such a feature in PG?
You can still use a subqu
"Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/16/07 12:50, João Paulo Zavanela wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> How many fields is recomended to create a primary key?
>> I'm thinking to create one with 6 fields, is much?
>
> The number of recommended fields is the *minimum* number required
> for unique
On 11/13/07, froast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in mysql, I used :"set foreign_key_check = 0;" to disable the foreign key
> check, now I'm trying to migrate from mysql to postgres, how should I do to
> disable it?
PostgreSQL isn't really designed to let your data be compromised.
What actual prob
On Nov 12, 2007 1:53 PM, Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> >
> I'm wondering if you cast the md5sum as a bytea instead of text and
> then sort, if that would solve it simply.
> >>> Along the lines of
On Nov 16, 2007 11:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
> Process postmaster completly eat my proccessor for a long time and i see that
> message in logs.
> Does anybody know what does the subj means and why it occures ?
You're giving us WAY too little information to troubleshoot this probl
On Nov 14, 2007 7:53 AM, Abhijeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regexp_replace() function in new version of PostgreSQL is giving error.
>
> I am trying to remove tags from string.
>
> I have tried following regex in & function:
>
> SELECT regexp_replace('Abhijeet',
> '<(\s)*/?(?i:script|i|b|
[snip]
> With Oracle we do it with: delete ,tname> where and rownum <
> Y;
> Can we have the same goody on Postgres?
The attached message is Tom's response to a similar question, in any
case it would work fine in your case too (assuming you have postgres
8.2).
HTH,
Csaba.
--- Begin Message -
This is probably a FAQ, but I can't find a good answer...
So - are there common techniques to compensate for the lack of
clustered/covering indexes in PostgreSQL? To be more specific - here is my
table (simplified):
topic_id int
post_id int
post_text varchar(1024)
The most used query is: S
Hello, All.
I have a query that I want to test twice to see its performance with
and without another program running (anti-virus program). I know that
if you run the same query for the second time, it will be faster than
the first time. So, how can I do to execute it as if it was the first
time ag
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
in the least.
If you post publicly something that is that ugly, then it is going to
get critiqued. It is that simple. You don't like it, don't post.
I have more than once taken my beatings on this list. It is time for
you to either grow a thicker skin or unsubscribe.
Jo
Hello,
I have a moderately large (~10-20GB) table:
CREATE TABLE msgs (
msg varchar(2048),
msg_tsv tsvector,
posted timestamp
);
CREATE INDEX msgs_i ON msgs USING gin(msg_tsv);
The table never gets updated (more specifically, it gets re-created once a
day with no updates in between).
I w
Thanks to all for the help - and the sanity check. The problem was in
the test and not in the configuration.
We were using a particularly difficult query as a reference (and fully
understanding that it is a two-dimensional alternative to a proper
benchmark). On our test system each run was with
Hello!
Process postmaster completly eat my proccessor for a long time and i see that
message in logs.
Does anybody know what does the subj means and why it occures ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
"PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on i686-pc-mingw32, compiled by GCC gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.2
(mingw-special)"
Database size in disk returned by pg_database_size() is 210 MB
Database compressesed backup file size is now 125 MB.
This seems too much. I expect compression to decrease size 10 times, also
indexes are
dcrespo wrote:
I have a query that I want to test twice to see its performance with
and without another program running (anti-virus program). I know that
if you run the same query for the second time, it will be faster than
the first time. So, how can I do to execute it as if it was the first
tim
Hi
The dump works now after deleting those rows from the pg_rewrite table
Thanks for your help
sharmila
- Original Message
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:33:20 PM
Subject:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Charles Mortell wrote:
Using PG 8.0 on Windows, I have a table 'business_list' with a two column
primary key. It's a linking table and it's primary keys are the keys from
the two tables I am linking: item_id and business.
Should I be able to update one of those primary key fi
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:02 -0800, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
> Perfect - that appears to be exactly what I was looking for.
> Reg Me Please wrote:
> > Il Wednesday 14 November 2007 05:50:36 Willem Buitendyk ha scritto:
> >
> >> Will Postgresql ever implement an ignore on error feature when bulk
in mysql, I used :"set foreign_key_check = 0;" to disable the foreign key
check, now I'm trying to migrate from mysql to postgres, how should I do to
disable it?
Edoardo Panfili wrote:
Charles.Hou ha scritto:
how can i get the int value using the sql language? like this,
"select cost from my_money_table " , the data type of cost is float.
take a look at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-expressions.html
CAST ( expression AS type )
expressi
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
I'm wondering if you cast the md5sum as a bytea instead of text and
then sort, if that would solve it simply.
Along the lines of
... ORDER BY decode(md5('...'), 'hex');
Maybe using digest(.., 'md5')
Hi,
regexp_replace() function in new version of PostgreSQL is giving error.
I am trying to remove tags from string.
I have tried following regex in & function:
- SELECT regexp_replace('Abhijeet',
'<(\s)*/?(?i:script|i|b|u|embed|object|a|frameset|frame|iframe|meta|link|style|table|th|td|t
--- Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Byers wrote:
> > Please consider the following statement (it
> becomes
> > obvious if you remember the important thing about
> the
> > table is that it has columns for each of stock_id,
> > price_date, and price).
> >
> > (SELECT * FROM stockpric
Hi,
When i start the postgres DB , it starts properly. but when i am
trying to connect to it . it shows a pop up with the error message
"Error connecting to the server: FATAL: index "pg_class_oid_index"
contains unexpected zero page at block 0
HINT: Please REINDEX it."
i tried starting the da
Ted Byers wrote:
Please consider the following statement (it becomes
obvious if you remember the important thing about the
table is that it has columns for each of stock_id,
price_date, and price).
(SELECT * FROM stockprices WHERE stock_id = 1 ORDER BY
price_date DESC LIMIT 1)
UNION
(SELECT * FR
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 17, 2007, at 0:36 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> pg_dump thinks it's a built-in system object.
> What other objects might be susceptible to this? Operators? Operator
> classes?
It's just casts. They're a bit of a problem since they have neither
own
[Please don't top post as it makes the discussion more difficult to
follow.]
On Nov 17, 2007, at 10:24 , dycharles wrote:
i already do that method, but nothing happen... i have another
solution
to that one, i just used 1 and 0 for true and false.. it sounds
bad, but
thats the only thin
thank for the reply,
i already do that method, but nothing happen... i have another solution
to that one, i just used 1 and 0 for true and false.. it sounds bad, but
thats the only thing i can do to maximized my time thanks...
regards,
dycharles
Michael Glaesemann-2 wrote:
>
>
> On N
Hi,
My max_fsm_relations is set to 2000, up from the default of 1000 after
previously getting warnings logged when the number of tables and
indexes exceeded that.
Looking again at it now, about a year later, our databases have grown.
In one database, the number of indexes and tables is
On Nov 17, 2007, at 0:36 , Tom Lane wrote:
"D. Dante Lorenso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I did this in my database:
CREATE CAST (VARCHAR AS BYTEA) WITHOUT FUNCTION;
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.2.4 for both the dump and restore
database. Why
doesn't the CAST dump and restore?
pg_dump thi
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:53 , Christian Schröder wrote:
Unfortunately, the trick from the docs (chapter 4.2.12) using "case
... then" does not work inside an "if" statement (the "then" of the
"case" is interpreted as belonging to the "if" and thus leads to a
syntax erro
On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:07 , Wolfgang Keller wrote:
But I am pathetically lazy >;->, so I ld like to save keystrokes
and thus I had the (maybe pathetic)idea to use composite types for
the composite primary (and foreign) keys. No luck again, it seems
to me, as according to the documentation:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:53 , Christian Schröder wrote:
Unfortunately, the trick from the docs (chapter 4.2.12) using
"case ... then" does not work inside an "if" statement (the "then"
of the "case" is interpreted as belonging to the "if" and thus
leads to a syntax error).
I think if you us
Hi list,
the logical operators "and" and "or" are commutative, i.e. there is no
"short-circuiting". Especially when doing PL/pgSQL development it would
sometimes be very handy to have this short circuiting. Unfortunately,
the trick from the docs (chapter 4.2.12) using "case ... then" does not
38 matches
Mail list logo
