On Sunday, December 18, 2011 04:00:14 PM amit sehas wrote:
> Yes i was trying to determine how to make a View work in this situation.
> From reading the details on PostgreSQL Views are not persistent, ie they
> are just a SQL query short hand rather than actually creating any physical
> entity back
hone From: amit sehas
Sent: 19 December 2011 06:17
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; David Johnston
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] indexes and tables
Yes i was trying to determine how to make a View work in this situation.
From reading the details on PostgreSQL Views are not persistent, ie they
are just
inheritance works in POstgres...
any help is greatly appreciated...
thanks
--- On Sun, 12/18/11, David Johnston wrote:
> From: David Johnston
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] indexes and tables
> To: "'amit sehas'" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Date: Sunday, December 1
to deal with multiple
views/queries.
David J.
-Original Message-
From: amit sehas [mailto:cu...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:00 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; David Johnston
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] indexes and tables
Yes i was trying to determine how to make a View work in
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of amit sehas
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:22 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] indexes and tables
HI,
we have a schema related question. We have
HI,
we have a schema related question. We have 10 types of resource records.
Each one of these resource records has 3 fields (attributes) (lets say f1, f2,
f3)...these fields have similar meaning to the corresponding 3 fields
in each resource record although they be named slightly differently in
I was reading an interview with Chris Date the other day, which got me
thinking about a problem I'm currently having:
I have an application that keeps information in 6 denormalized tables,
D1 through D6. To tie things together, all these tables have a common
column, let's call it obj_id.
There
On Jul 18, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Regular vacuum will (almost) never return your table to it's minimum
size. I don't think it's unreasonable for a table that is 4MB after a
vacuum full, to grow to 11MB, especially if it's a very active table.
That's good to know.
The importan
Regular vacuum will (almost) never return your table to it's minimum
size. I don't think it's unreasonable for a table that is 4MB after a
vacuum full, to grow to 11MB, especially if it's a very active table.
The important question is does it keep growing? Or does it reach a
steady state size?
