I tested the same backup on our CentOS 5.4 virtual machine (running on xen
server) and the results are really weird (118 rows, comparing to 116 on win
xp and 123 expected):
Aggregate (cost=104.00..104.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=120.373..120.374 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on sear
The CentOS used for testing is a 64-bits version.
Artur Dabrowski wrote:
>
> I tested the same backup on our CentOS 5.4 virtual machine (running on xen
> server) and the results are really weird (118 rows, comparing to 116 on
> win xp and 123 expected):
>
>
>
--
View this message in contex
In article <20100719162547.ga17...@localhost>,
arno writes:
> Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.
No, I'd say you're looking for the ip4r package which provides
an indexable IP address range type.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes
Artur,
I recommend post your problem to -hackers mailing list. I have no idea,
what could be a problem.
My machine is:
uname -a
Linux mira 2.6.33-020633-generic #020633 SMP Thu Feb 25 10:10:03 UTC 2010
x86_64 GNU/Linux
PostgreSQL 8.4.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (Ubuntu
Thanks guys.
Joe, I tried ( and learned! ) from your syntax. I didn't have pgsql language
installed but I googled it and figured that part out.
There was an issue with using your way though, you see the constraints
relation also needs to be considered, as if a constraint key already exist,
for an
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 03:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
[...]
> You've hit one of those areas where SQL databases kind of suck. You'll
> have to use one of the well understood workarounds like EAV and live
> with their limitations, or find a database better suited to the data.
Thanks for the feedback
hi
i have a table like this
CREATE TABLE test(
id bigint,
tag boolean[]
) WITH ( OIDS=FALSE );
this is a parent table of some partition tables
one table contains 1mio entries
well in the future it should - currently only filled with test data
the array is used to 'tag' a row
which means eve
It's doable. but requires a lot of work. We need support for this.
Oleg
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Howard Rogers wrote:
I asked recently about a performance problem I'd been having with some
full text queries, and got really useful help that pointed me to the
root issues. Currently, I'm trying to see
LinkedIn
Rafael Comino Mateos requested to add you as a connection on
LinkedIn:
--
Andrew,
Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn.
-Rafael
Accept invitation from Rafael Comino Mateos
http://www.linkedin.com/e/v74zw8-gbunc9zb-2
(anonymous) wrote:
> Order contains same product in multiple rows.
> I tried to calculate undelivered quantity using script below but it produces
> wrong result:
> delivered quantity is substracted from both rows, not distributed.
> How to distibute undelivered quantity according to row quantity
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:18:59AM +0100, Jennifer Trey wrote:
> What is the most generic exception in postgres ? Throwable in Java ?
AFAIR, from programming Java many moons ago, you really don't want to go
about catching the most general exception. The ThreadDeath exception
for instance is deriv
Hi Everyone:
v8.3.4 on Linux
I need to revamp the way I've done check constraints on a table. This is an
example of the sort of thing I've done...
create table foo (
col1 text,
col2 text,
constraint c1_constr check (col1 in ('yes','no')),
constraint c2_constr check (validate_c2(col2) =
Hi all,
I've noticed that an insert command with returning clause returns an
empty result set if done on a master table. Instead the same insert
with returning on partitioned tables works correctly.
Do you know if it's a normal action? I'm doing something wrong?
The partitioning works correctly
On 20 July 2010 14:42, pdov...@tiscali.it wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've noticed that an insert command with returning clause returns an
> empty result set if done on a master table. Instead the same insert
> with returning on partitioned tables works correctly.
>
> Do you know if it's a normal action? I
On 20 Jul 2010, at 16:19, Gauthier, Dave wrote:
> Hi Everyone:
>
> v8.3.4 on Linux
>
> I need to revamp the way I've done check constraints on a table. This is an
> example of the sort of thing I've done...
>
> create table foo (
> col1 text,
> col2 text,
> constraint c1_constr check
Oleg,
thanks for your help.
I sent a post to pg-hackers list:
http://old.nabble.com/Query-results-differ-depending-on-operating-system-%28using-GIN%29-ts29213082.html
As to compiling pg... I will no do this since I do not really feel
comfortable doing it and cannot dedicate too much time to thi
Is there a way to find last checkpoint time via SQL command? I know I
can grep xlogs by turning on log_checkpoints, but I'd prefer an SQL
solution.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org
Community: devrim~Post
2010/7/20 Devrim GÜNDÜZ :
>
> Is there a way to find last checkpoint time via SQL command? I know I
> can grep xlogs by turning on log_checkpoints, but I'd prefer an SQL
> solution.
>
> --
Or you can use pg_controldata /path/to/pgdata and look at "Time of
latest checkpoint".
I don't know of any o
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
Is there a way to find last checkpoint time via SQL command? I know I
can grep xlogs by turning on log_checkpoints, but I'd prefer an SQL
solution.
Not directly. Best you can do without linking in new server code is
either import the logs via CVS to get them into a tab
Hi. I've just discovered the check_postgres utility and am running
all the tests against my database.
The "last_analyze" test comes out critical - many tables unanalyzed
for 8 weeks.
I am running PostgreSQL 8.4.4 with default autovacuum settings. I
thought autovacuum was
supposed to take care o
I just ran the "last_autovacuum" test of check_postgres, and it reported
7 (of my 100) tables have been autovacuumed more than 1 day ago;
the oldest autovacuum time was 7 weeks ago.
8 more tables in pg_catalog were autovacuumed more than 1 day ago.
Thanks,
-at
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing
I am sorry for the multiple posts; just noticed there are two tests
for analyze: last_analyze and last_autoanalyze
last_autoanalyze matches last_autovacuum - 7 weeks ago
Aleksey
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Aleksey Tsalolikhin
wrote:
> Hi. I've just discovered the check_postgres utility and am running
> all the tests against my database.
>
> The "last_analyze" test comes out critical - many tables unanalyzed
> for 8 weeks.
have those tables been modified at all? th
I'm sorry if this not the appropriate place for this post, but I couldn't
figure out where to put this and I didn't see anything online so far...
I've been prototyping a small database, with the following table definition:
drop table if exists tradeprices cascade;
create table tradeprices (
Excerpts from Jeff Hamann's message of mar jul 20 17:59:01 -0400 2010:
> select universedate,tradetimestamp,tradeprices from tradeprices where
> date(tradetimestamp) = CURRENT_DATE order by tradetimestamp desc;
You're selecting the "whole row" as a column, which is why you get a row
back in the
Hi,
I currently have a simple queue written ontop of Postgres. Jobs are
inserted and workers periodically check for jobs they can do, do them,
and then delete the rows. pg_try_advisory_lock is used to (attempt
to) stop two workers from doing the same job.
(I'm working on moving to a "real" mess
On 20/07/10 18:14, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> However, I feel that this design is the same design I seem to use for
> all my databases, and in the end I always find that I designed them
> wrong from the beginning. The table "components" feels like that one
> is going to be locked into a corner; i
On 21/07/10 07:27, Brett Hoerner wrote:
> Here is an example query,
>
> SELECT q.*
> FROM (SELECT id, job, arg
> FROM queue
> WHERE job = 'foo' OR job = 'bar'
> OFFSET 0) AS q
> WHERE pg_try_advisory_lock(1, q.id)
> LIMIT 10
>
> (For information on OFFSET 0 see:
> http://blog.e
On 20/07/10 18:27, Prometheus Prometheus wrote:
What's with the pseudonym?
> to my index problem:
> e.g. a query
> select id from test_1 where NOT (tag[4]=false OR tag[4] IS NULL);
>
> doesnt use the index
> create index idx_test_1 on test(( NOT (tag[4]=false OR tag[4] IS NULL) ));
You should b
29 matches
Mail list logo
