s;
GRANT ALL ON TABLE crabdata.activity_month TO public;
On 2012-02-23, at 6:04 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:53:42 pm Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> Both via psql and PgAdmin.
>>
>> Yes only one database cluster.
>>
>
> An
ity_trial
> OWNER TO postgres;
>
On 2012-02-23, at 6:04 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:53:42 pm Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> Both via psql and PgAdmin.
>>
>> Yes only one database cluster.
>>
>
> Another thought.
> Did you
h date NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT idkeymonth PRIMARY KEY (action_month )
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE test2.activity_trial
OWNER TO postgres;
On 2012-02-23, at 6:04 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:53:42 pm Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> Both via psql and
Both via psql and PgAdmin.
Yes only one database cluster.
On 2012-02-23, at 1:32 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 01:08 PM, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> I have it set in postgresql.conf and I've also used:
>>
>> alter user postgres set search_path = crabdata
quot;";"";""
"crabby";"public";"postgres";"";"";"";""
"crabby";"information_schema";"postgres";"";"";"";""
"crabby";"crabd
search_path;
search_path
-
crabdata
(1 row)
On 2012-02-23, at 12:16 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 12:49 PM, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> Here are the log returns:
>>
>> 2012-02-23 11:31:44 PST WARNING invalid value for parameter
>> "search
saying that crabdata doesn't exist. But it clearly does. I'm at a loss.
Willem
On 2012-02-23, at 11:41 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:18:46 am Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> I have recently upgraded my database from 8.4 to 9.1. In the process
I have recently upgraded my database from 8.4 to 9.1. In the process I have
moved everything to a different schema. Postgis is occupying the public
schema. Everything is working fine except for some of my own functions. Here
is a small function and table that will not update when I perform th
2012-01-19, at 10:10 AM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 19/01/2012 17:27, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> I have 8.2 installed on 64bit windows 7. I have no problem making a
>> local connection. However, when I make changes to pg_hba.conf such
>> as add:
>>
>> local
On 2012-01-19, at 10:10 AM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 19/01/2012 17:27, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
>> I have 8.2 installed on 64bit windows 7. I have no problem making a
>> local connection. However, when I make changes to pg_hba.conf such
>> as add:
>>
>
I have 8.2 installed on 64bit windows 7. I have no problem making a local
connection. However, when I make changes to pg_hba.conf such as add:
local all all trust
I still cannot connect through a VPN. On a hunch that my pg server was not
using the config files in "C:\Program Files (x86)\Post
Any ideas how to extract a non-iso week from timestamp? In other words,
weeks that start on Sunday and end on Saturday? We have the dow
function which returns the non-iso day of the week, why not a non-iso
week function?
Cheers,
Willem
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@
Tom Lane wrote:
>That's a fairly bad workaround (assuming that the function is a
> legitimate candidate to be IMMUTABLE) because it defeats potential
> optimizations.
>
> What I'd suggest you do instead is rethink your apparently widespread
> habit of whacking your view definitions around on-th
:
Willem Buitendyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The problem was with the following:
FOR current_row IN SELECT * from temp_tags_18_counted
The select from the [temp_tags_18_counted] view is made up of 3 cross
joins. When I simplify and remove the joins everything
and the joins in place and
it works too.
In the production data table there are about 250K rows. Is it possible
that calls to queries are colliding here or not giving each other enough
time before being whisked around to next call in the FOR loop?
cheers,
willem
Tom Lane wrote:
Willem
I am receiving a SPI_ERROR_CONNECT error. From what I'm reading I could
fix this in C using SPI_push(). How does one fix this with PL/PGSql?
Return error:
---
NOTICE: current day = 1
ERROR: SPI_c
t;
first_day_next_month('2007-04-01'); was about 36s
cheers
Greg Smith wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
I have the following function that returns the first day of the next
month from whatever date is inserted.
See if you can do this with date_trunc instead to av
I have the following function that returns the first day of the next
month from whatever date is inserted. If I use this as part of a select
statement then it takes almost twice as long to perform. Is this
because for each scanned record this function is being called? If so
any ideas how I c
the current copy
commands in effect. Would still like to see a progress indicator though :)
Willem
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 10:42 AM, Willem Buitendyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I'm trying to restore my database from 8.26 into 8.3 (wi
I'm trying to restore my database from 8.26 into 8.3 (win32) but find
the process to be exceedingly slow. The database has about 60M records.
I realize there will be differences based on hardware, available memory,
complexity of records but when I first tried a restore with the verbose
option
Here is a little test example. It seems that the second order by
condition is not working - in this case datetime.
create table arb_test (
client_id integer,
arbnum integer);
insert into arb_test values (2,1);
insert into arb_test values (2,33);
insert into arb_test values (2,6);
insert into a
The 'all_client_times' table has 753698 rows. The lagfunc() on the
sorted view returns 753576 rows and appears to work exactly as needed.
Using the function on an unsorted table returns only 686 rows and is
missing a whole lot of data. Running the count query returns 122 -
which is correct a
Hey Adam,
I tried your sequence method this morning on an unsorted table and for
some reason the order by's aren't working. If I create a sorted view
(client_id, datetime) on the 'all_client_times' table and then use that
view with your sequence method all works fine. The strange thing is
t
Found the error:
client_id := thisrow.datetime;
should be
client_id := thisrow.client_id;
All works well now,
Thanks very much,
Willem
Willem Buitendyk wrote:
I tried this function but it keeps returning an error such as:
ERROR: invalid input syntax for integer: "2007-05-05 00:34:08
Thanks Reece,
I got this to work for me. The only problem was with the ORDER BY
clause which did not seem to work properly. I took it out and instead
used a sorted view for the data table.
Cheers,
Willem
Reece Hart wrote:
create table data (
client_id integer,
datetime timestamp
I tried this function but it keeps returning an error such as:
ERROR: invalid input syntax for integer: "2007-05-05 00:34:08"
SQL state: 22P02
Context: PL/pgSQL function "lagfunc" line 10 at assignment
I checked and there are no datetime values in the client_id field
anywhere in my table 'all_c
I'm trying to replicate the use of Oracle's 'lag' and 'over partition
by' analytical functions in my query. I have a table (all_client_times)
such as:
client_id, datetime
122, 2007-05-01 12:00:00
122, 2007-05-01 12:01:00
455, 2007-05-01 12:02:00
455, 2007-05-01 12:03:00
455, 2007-05-01 12:08:0
When I run Analyze I get the following notice repeated for many of my
tables:
NOTICE: no notnull values, invalid stats
Is this just refering to my empty tables?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
My apologies. I misinterpreted that last post. I have not been able to
try pgloader as I am using the windows platform.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 08:09:46PM -0800, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
Damn - so the unqiue contraint is still an issue. What gives? Why is
Damn - so the unqiue contraint is still an issue. What gives? Why is
it so hard to implement this in Postgresql? sigh - if only I had more time.
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:02 -0800, Willem Buitendyk wrote:
Perfect - that appears to be exactly what I was looking for
I've just gone through the better part of a day trying to resolve the
windows installer stalling out for Postgresql version 8.2.5
DEBUG: Error 2769:
The faq mentions a cygwin path problem, but I did not have cygwin
installed. I tried turning off all antiv-virus, firewalls and
reconfiguring r
Is there any plan to port Postgresql to windows x64? I can currently
run Postgresql as 32 bit inside Vista 64 - would I see better
performance if Postgresql was running under 64 bit. My biggest concern
is memory - at 32 bit is not Postgresql limited to 4GB in windows?
Thanks,
Willem
--
Thanks Magnus. Looking forward to 8.4, but I gather that will be some
time coming.
Willem
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Willem Buitendyk wrote:
Is there any plan to port Postgresql to windows x64? I can currently
run Postgresql as 32 bit inside Vista 64 - would I see better
performance if
Perfect - that appears to be exactly what I was looking for.
Cheers
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
loading data? Currently it is my understanding that any record
Will Postgresql ever implement an ignore on error feature when bulk
loading data? Currently it is my understanding that any record that
violates a unique constraint will cause the "copy from" command to halt
execution instead of skipping over the violation and logging it - as is
done in Oracle
35 matches
Mail list logo
