Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread Klint Gore
[I'm not going to even try to work out that mess to quote it] The following works for me. You can even do it without dynamic sql (see fun_orderreport1). begin; -- dummy up some tables for self contained example create table orders (ordersid int, initiated date, company int, event int); create

Re: [GENERAL] size of a table on postgresql

2008-08-12 Thread Tino Wildenhain
aravind chandu wrote: Hello, The following is the procedure to calculate the disk space occupied by postgresql from a flat file. In this I didn't understood some terms 24 bytes: each row header (approximate) 24 bytes: one int field and one text field + 4 bytes: poin

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread Sathish Duraiswamy
Murali, Tried the same method using FOR --LOOP with EXECUTE command similar function you described and got the same error message. When i used raise info to check the function , i get the set of records as result .But finally , it throws same error Someone can help on this issue.. Regrds sathis

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Ow Mun Heng
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:38 -0700, Lennin Caro wrote: > you can use a cron job > I have my cron setup to do database wide vacuums each night and it usually takes ~between 4-6 hours on ~200G DB size. On days where there is huge activity, it can drag on for like 15+ hours. I've recently dropped

Re: [GENERAL] Is the primary key constraint also an index?

2008-08-12 Thread Craig Ringer
Tim Uckun wrote: > If I have a primary key constraint defined in the database do I also > need to create an index on that field for fast lookup? No. Declaring field(s) as the primary key automatically adds a UNIQUE constraint on those fields. PostgreSQL implements unique constraints using a unique

Re: [GENERAL] Is the primary key constraint also an index?

2008-08-12 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Uckun > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:18 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] Is the primary key constraint also an index? > > If I have a primary key constra

[GENERAL] Is the primary key constraint also an index?

2008-08-12 Thread Tim Uckun
If I have a primary key constraint defined in the database do I also need to create an index on that field for fast lookup? The documentation on the web seems to imply that the contraint is not an index. Is that right? What the difference between creating a unique, not null index and setting a pr

Re: [GENERAL] How to modify ENUM datatypes? (The solution)

2008-08-12 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Dmitry Koterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is the solution about "on the fly" ALTER ENUM: > http://en.dklab.ru/lib/dklab_postgresql_enum/ > > Usage: > > -- Add a new element to the ENUM "on the fly". > > SELECT enum.enum_add('my_enum', 'third'); > > -- Remove

Re: [GENERAL] How to modify ENUM datatypes? (The solution)

2008-08-12 Thread Dmitry Koterov
Here is the solution about "on the fly" ALTER ENUM: http://en.dklab.ru/lib/dklab_postgresql_enum/ Usage: *-- Add a new element to the ENUM "on the fly". SELECT enum.enum_add('my_enum', 'third');* *-- Remove an element from the ENUM "on the fly". SELECT enum.enum_del('my_enum', 'first');* Possib

Re: [GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Steve Atkins
On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Steve Atkins wrote: What operations do you perform on the data? If it's just store and retrieve, can you serialize them into a bytea (or xml) field? Store & retrieve although we take advantage of the fact that it's in a D

Re: [GENERAL] 8.3.1 Vs 8.3.3

2008-08-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM, David Siebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do agree and really like Centos but I don't want to have to have to > admin this box myself. Our network admin likes OpenSuse and doesn't want > to have to deal with anything else. I've found that adminning a dedicated p

Re: [GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Jeff Gentry
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote: > The generic solution without making too much work is to store similar > data types in an arrayed type in the db. That's a good idea. I'll have to play w/ this one. Thanks. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Jeff Gentry
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Steve Atkins wrote: > What operations do you perform on the data? If it's just store and > retrieve, can you serialize them into a bytea (or xml) field? Store & retrieve although we take advantage of the fact that it's in a DB to allow for subsetting (done at the postgres leve

Re: [GENERAL] 8.3.1 Vs 8.3.3

2008-08-12 Thread David Siebert
I do agree and really like Centos but I don't want to have to have to admin this box myself. Our network admin likes OpenSuse and doesn't want to have to deal with anything else. I tried Ubuntu server a while ago and was really not impressed. It was lacking a lot of packages that I wanted but that

Re: [GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jeff Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there ... > > I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns, being > at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that anyone > would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've

Re: [GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Steve Atkins
On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote: Hi there ... I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns, being at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that anyone would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've managed to bump into i

[GENERAL] Confronting the maximum column limitation

2008-08-12 Thread Jeff Gentry
Hi there ... I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns, being at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that anyone would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've managed to bump into it myself and was looking to see if anyone had advice on how

Re: [GENERAL] 8.3.1 Vs 8.3.3

2008-08-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM, David Siebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am setting up a new server and I am using OpenSuse. OpenSuse only has > 8.3.1 in the repositories so I am wondering just how critical is the > need to update? I checked out the changed and there looks like a lot of > th

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread William Garrison
The dump is over 3GB. So there's no question this is it. I had a feeling this would all come down to not being on the latest version. Thanks to both Tom and Magnus for your help. Tom Lane wrote: William Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm embarrassed to say it is 8.2.3 :( I'm not s

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
William Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm embarrassed to say it is 8.2.3 :( I'm not sure why they haven't > upgraded our production servers to the latest 8.2 yet. It's running on > Windows Server 2003, and it looks like there is plenty of disk space. Hmm. There was an 8.2.4 bug fix

[GENERAL] 8.3.1 Vs 8.3.3

2008-08-12 Thread David Siebert
I am setting up a new server and I am using OpenSuse. OpenSuse only has 8.3.1 in the repositories so I am wondering just how critical is the need to update? I checked out the changed and there looks like a lot of them in 8.3.2. so I am wondering if I should just install from source or live with t

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread William Garrison
yay! Thank you. Magnus Hagander wrote: This is almost certainly the bug fixed in 8.2.4 and listed in the release notes as: "Allow pg_dump to do binary backups larger than two gigabytes on Windows (Magnus) " If it happens to be that your dump could approach the 2Gb limit, I sugge

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread Magnus Hagander
This is almost certainly the bug fixed in 8.2.4 and listed in the release notes as: "Allow pg_dump to do binary backups larger than two gigabytes on Windows (Magnus) " If it happens to be that your dump could approach the 2Gb limit, I suggest you upgrade to 8.2.9 and see if it goes away. As this

[GENERAL] size of a table on postgresql

2008-08-12 Thread aravind chandu
Hello,   The following is the procedure to calculate the disk space occupied by postgresql from a flat file. In this I didn't understood some terms  24 bytes: each row header (approximate) 24 bytes: one int field and one text field + 4 bytes: pointer on page to tup

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > TW, "more aggressive routine vacuuming" does NOT mean "use vacuum > > full". > > Vacuum full tends to make index bloat worse, not better. > > > > regards, to

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !? SOLVED

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
Hi guys, If found the reason for all this problem. explanation: vacuum reindex cron scripts were not being executed. I executed the operations by hand and the values became normal. thank you all for the fine discussion. joao On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 13:49 +0200, Tommy Gildseth wrote: > Joao

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread William Garrison
I'm embarrassed to say it is 8.2.3 :( I'm not sure why they haven't upgraded our production servers to the latest 8.2 yet. It's running on Windows Server 2003, and it looks like there is plenty of disk space. I googled this and found someone reported defect 2461 for this, some time ago, but

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM, William Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> >>> I executed REINDEX by hand and the disk ocupation imediatelly dropped 6 >>> Giga...!!! >>> >> >> >>> >>> is there a way to configure postg

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread William Garrison
Tom Lane wrote: Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I executed REINDEX by hand and the disk ocupation imediatelly dropped 6 Giga...!!! is there a way to configure postgres to automatically execute the needed REINDEXING (on indexes and tables) for a given database

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> TW, "more aggressive routine vacuuming" does NOT mean "use vacuum >> full". >> Vacuum full tends to make index bloat worse, not better. >> >>

Re: [GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
William Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Our IT administrator ran a pg_dump and received the following error: > pg_dump: [custom archiver] WARNING: ftell mismatch with expected > position -- ftell used What platform, and exactly what version of pg_dump? Is it possible you ran out of disk s

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > TW, "more aggressive routine vacuuming" does NOT mean "use vacuum > full". > Vacuum full tends to make index bloat worse, not better. > > regards, tom lane > Ok. so what does it mean ? I'm a bit lost here. I'm curre

[GENERAL] ftell error during pg_dump

2008-08-12 Thread William Garrison
Our IT administrator ran a pg_dump and received the following error: . . . pg_dump: dumping contents of table history pg_dump: [custom archiver] WARNING: ftell mismatch with expected position -- ftell used pg_dump: dumping contents of table history_archive pg_dump: [custom archiver] WARNING: fte

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
so use EXECUTE: CREATE TABLE test (textcol varchar(10), intcol int); INSERT INTO test VALUES ('a', 1); INSERT INTO test VALUES ('a', 2); INSERT INTO test VALUES ('b', 5); INSERT INTO test VALUES ('b', 6); CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ReturnNexting(pText Text) RETURNS SETOF test AS $$ DECLARE rec R

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I executed REINDEX by hand and the disk ocupation imediatelly dropped 6 > Giga...!!! > is there a way to configure postgres to automatically execute the needed > REINDEXING (on indexes and tables) for a given database Generally speaking, there

Re: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Lennin Caro
you can use a cron job --- On Tue, 8/12/08, Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing > To: "pgsql-general" > Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 3:13 PM > Hello all > > [[[ while dealing with a disk si

Re: [GENERAL] different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously)

2008-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
"Matthew Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In reference to the script below (I know it can be rewritten, that's not the > point), I get 3 rows if the referenced index exists but only two rows if it > does not. I don't see any failure in 8.3 branch tip. I think the bug was fixed here: http://a

[GENERAL] automatic REINDEX-ing

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
Hello all [[[ while dealing with a disk size problem I realised my REINDEX cron script was not really being called every week :( so... ]]] I executed REINDEX by hand and the disk ocupation imediatelly dropped 6 Giga...!!! is there a way to configure postgres to automatically execute the needed

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, I have changed my procedure like below, CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION fun_orderreport(pmorderid integer, pmcompanyid integer, pmeventid integer) RETURNS SETOF orderreport AS $BODY$ DECLARE vResult ORDERREPORT%ROWTYPE; vSql TEXT = ' SELECT ORDR.ORDERSID

[GENERAL] Re: different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously)

2008-08-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 12, 8:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ries van Twisk) wrote: > On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > > > > > reproduced it on: > > "PostgreSQL 8.3.3 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC)   > > 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)" > > 3 rows with index, 2 rows without. > > > can n

Re: [GENERAL] different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously)

2008-08-12 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35:26PM -0500, Matthew Dennis wrote: > In reference to the script below (I know it can be rewritten, that's > not the point), I get 3 rows if the referenced index exists but only > two rows if it does not. This is observable and repeatable just by > dropping/creating the

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please understand. I know I have to use FOR . LOOP for my query. But it is not a normal one .I use to build that one dynamically. From: Willy-Bas Loos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Sathish Duraiswamy; pgsql-general@postgresql.

Re: [GENERAL] pg crashing

2008-08-12 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'll see if I can repro a case like it to see if the syslogger prevents >> the shared mem from going away when I get back to a dev box. Should be >> enough to just stick a sleep preventing it from stopping, right? > > The syslogger i

Re: [GENERAL] different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously)

2008-08-12 Thread ries van Twisk
On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: reproduced it on: "PostgreSQL 8.3.3 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)" 3 rows with index, 2 rows without. can not reproduce it on: - "PostgreSQL 8.1.10 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
>Iam getting just the first record from the recordset That's because you use SELECT INTO, you should use FOR rec IN LOOP Here's sample code from http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/plpgsql-control-structures.html CREATE TABLE test (textcol varchar(10), intcol int); INSERT INTO test

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Tommy Gildseth
Joao Ferreira gmail wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:58 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: If I try cluster, I'm guessing I'll choose the big index and forget about the smaller ones... is this right ? CLUSTER will sort out all the indexes, even though you're just clustering on on. -- Tommy Gildse

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Tommy Gildseth
Joao Ferreira gmail wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:45 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Joao Ferreira gmail wrote: I'm finding it very strange that my pg takes 9Giga on disk but pg_dumpall produces a 250Mega dump. 'VACUUM FULL' was executed yesterday. If you've been running VACUU

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:58 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: > It's likely you've got index bloat. If you reload a pg_dump of the > database in question into another server how much space does that take > up? right. just loaded the dump into a clean database and everything came down about 10 times.

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Joao Ferreira gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:43 -0700, Vlad Kosilov wrote: > > ./data/ you may want to exclude those. I find this query useful for > > something like this as well: > > > > select datname,pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(oid)) from pg_databas

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Sathish, Thanks for your reply. But I have created the type to return the record set from my join query using a stored function. I cannot able to create a table with that details .. Since those details will be already available from different tables. One more thing .. I am clear

Re: [GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread Sathish Duraiswamy
Dear murali, We use psql for our ERP software .We found CREATE TYPE is useful in creating new data type similar to creating domain. For eg CREATE TYPE date_condition ( condition_id int, from_date date, to_datedate); Instead , yo

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:45 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Joao Ferreira gmail wrote: > > > I'm finding it very strange that my pg takes 9Giga on disk but > > pg_dumpall produces a 250Mega dump. 'VACUUM FULL' was executed > > yesterday. > > If you've been running VACUUM FULL,

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.3 XML parser seems not to recognize the DOCTYPE element in XML files

2008-08-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Thursday, 7. February 2008 schrieb Lawrence Oluyede: > PostgreSQL 8.3 instead doesn't allow the insertion of XML with doctype > in its new native data type returning this error message: > > """ > ERROR: invalid XML content > DETAIL: Entity: line 2: parser error : StartTag: invalid element name

[GENERAL] Need help returning record set from a dynamic sql query

2008-08-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Iam new to Postgresql, now i need to create a Dynamic SQL Query for returning the record set based on my Input Parameters. I looked up some of the documents and worked out some more ... MY Postgresql Version In Local: 7.4 MY Postgresql Version In Development: 8.2 -- DROP TYPE ORDERREPORT; C

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
Hello Greg, Vlad, Scott and all, thanks for the feedback. O forgot to mention that I execute REINDEX on all tables and INDEXes every week (right after executing VACUUM FULL). Is this enough to eliminate the possibility of "index bloat" ? and, yes, my database has some crazy indexes. I use the

Re: [GENERAL] big database with very small dump !?

2008-08-12 Thread Joao Ferreira gmail
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:43 -0700, Vlad Kosilov wrote: > ./data/ you may want to exclude those. I find this query useful for > something like this as well: > > select datname,pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(oid)) from pg_database ; > Hello Vlad, I ran your query and I got the 9Gigas! I guess

Re: [GENERAL] Can I search for text in a function?

2008-08-12 Thread Sim Zacks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Try: select * from pg_proc where lower(prosrc) like '%previous_charge%'; Sim Rob Richardson wrote: > Greetings! > > Sometimes I need to track down how something happens in the database our > application relies on, but whatever's happening may be b

[GENERAL] test message --> Is this post getting to the list?

2008-08-12 Thread Ow Mun Heng
-- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously)

2008-08-12 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
reproduced it on: "PostgreSQL 8.3.3 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)" 3 rows with index, 2 rows without. can not reproduce it on: - "PostgreSQL 8.1.10 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.1.3 20070831 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu1)" -

Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoints writes

2008-08-12 Thread Cyril SCETBON
Greg Smith wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Cyril SCETBON wrote: What's the way to count the read/write bytes of the checkpoint process before 8.3 (no pg_stat_bgwriter view :-[ ) I want to distinguish bytes written by checkpoints and others written by the background process The reason that view

Re: [GENERAL] differnt behaviour of NULL in an aggregate and with an operator

2008-08-12 Thread Craig Ringer
Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > Hi, > > Why is it that > SELECT 1+null > evaluates to NULL, but > SELECT sum(foo) FROM (VALUES(1), (NULL)) AS v(foo) > evaluates to 1 ? SUM(x) ignores null input, like COUNT(x) etc. It's the sum of all non-null instances of x. There's some useful explanation of the va

[GENERAL] differnt behaviour of NULL in an aggregate and with an operator

2008-08-12 Thread Willy-Bas Loos
Hi, Why is it that SELECT 1+null evaluates to NULL, but SELECT sum(foo) FROM (VALUES(1), (NULL)) AS v(foo) evaluates to 1 ? WBL