On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:02 AM, George Weaver wrote:
> Thanks David,
>
> I found that if the whole expression is made a sub-select it works:
>
I too eventually got there. :-)
Check the plan for two queries that you have.
Best Regards,
*Sameer Kumar | Database Consultant*
*ASHNIK PTE. LTD.
Hi all,
I want to use PostgreSQL to help me calculate the cardinality/selectivity of
some queries, but I do not want to insert any data into these tables(since the
data size is huge) to PostgreSQL. So I plan to calculate the statistic data by
myself (not in PostgreSQL) and manually specify the m
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
> It doesn't seem logical to me that pg_dump should generate wal, but i
> haven't been able to find a different explanation so far.
> So to make sure, i want to ask you people: can it be that running pg_dump
> creates a lot of wal?
Interesti
Hey List,
kind of a simple question :
I'm using the postgis_topology extension,
and I'm trying to figure where the slowness comes from when importing data.
It involves plpgsql function calling other plpgsql functions, insert,
update, etc etc.
I know I can use explain analyze for one querry, but
On 08/01/2014 16:09, gator...@yahoo.de wrote:
> For machines running database systems, this means, this means,
> that I need some way to get a consistent state of some point in
> time. It does not particularly matter, which time exactly (in
> Unfortunately, it does not look like there is any dire
to be specific, this is the SQL.
SELECT to_number((SELECT
array_to_string((SELECT xpath('/attributes/duration/text()',(SELECT XMLPARSE
(CONTENT
'22truetrue0')),ARRAY[ARRAY['',
'']])
),'','')),'9') > 30
Thank you
From: panneer...@hotmail.com
To: pol...@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [GENERA
Hi All,
I am facing one problem. I want to read the log files of postgres.
Actually our customer facing some problem in database. Continuously one error
exception raised by the system.
Error is:
2014-01-09 22:08:12.003, SEVERE, manager.Data Manager - Could not execute JDBC
batch update; SQL [
Hi:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Tirthankar Barari wrote:
> We have a table where we insert about 10 million rows everyday. We keep 14
> day's worth of entries (i.e. 140 mil). A scheduled task wakes up every day
> and deletes all entries past the 14 day window (i.e. deletes entries from
> the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:00 PM, ygnhzeus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use PostgreSQL to help me calculate the cardinality/selectivity of
> some queries, but I do not want to insert any data into these tables(since
> the data size is huge) to PostgreSQL. So I plan to calculate the statistic
> da
Thanks for your reply.
So correlation is not related to the calculation of selectivity right? If I
force PostgreSQL not to optimize the join order (by setting join_collapse_limit
and from_collapse_limit to 1) , is there any other factor that may affect the
structure of execution plan regardless
Sent from my iPad
> On 10-Jan-2014, at 19:42, "ygnhzeus" wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> So correlation is not related to the calculation of selectivity right? If I
> force PostgreSQL not to optimize the join order (by setting
> join_collapse_limit and from_collapse_limit to 1) , is the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Atri Sharma wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 10-Jan-2014, at 19:42, "ygnhzeus" wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> So correlation is not related to the calculation of selectivity right? If I
> force PostgreSQL not to optimize the join order (by setting
> joi
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Cura
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:10 AM
To: PostgreSQL General
Subject: [GENERAL] excution time for plpgsql function and subfunction
Hey List,
kind of a simple question :
I'm using the po
Panneerselvam Posangu wrote
> to be specific, this is the SQL.
> SELECT to_number((SELECT
> array_to_string((SELECT xpath('/attributes/duration/text()',(SELECT
> XMLPARSE
> (CONTENT
> '
>
>
> 2
>
>
> 2
>
>
> true
>
>
> true
>
>
> 0
>
>
> ')),ARRAY[ARRAY['',
> '']])
>
>
> ),'','
tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors
despite the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the workload
and number of clients remaining the same.
Details:
We have been using Postgresql for some time internally with much success.
Recently, we completed a
Just as a followup to this. The process that I am using to do the upgrade
is as follows:
1. Install Postgres 9.3 in /opt dir.
2. In 9.0 instance update spclocation in pg_tablespace.
3. Update the symlinks in the pg_tblspace folder.
4. Move the tablespace folders to new location.
5. Run pg_upgrade.
On 01/10/2014 08:40 AM, Joseph Kregloh wrote:
Just as a followup to this. The process that I am using to do the
upgrade is as follows:
1. Install Postgres 9.3 in /opt dir.
2. In 9.0 instance update spclocation in pg_tablespace.
3. Update the symlinks in the pg_tblspace folder.
4. Move the tables
On 01/08/14 19:55, Jeff Janes wrote:
I think it would be easier to just exclude the database from the
system-wide backup and use a different method for it, rather than
engineer the necessary before/after hooks onto the system-wide backup.
Thanks for your comments!
I really thought, it would be
On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Preston Hagar wrote:
> tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors despite
> the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the workload and
> number of clients remaining the same.
>
>
> Details:
>
> We have been using Postgresq
Any way to add a PK "under the covers" for PostgreSQL version 8.3?
On 01/06/2014 03:53 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
CS DBA wrote on 06.01.2014 23:30:
We have a few very large tables with unique indexes on a column but
the column is not defined as the Primary Key. Can we add a PK
constraint v
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Preston Hagar wrote:
>
> > tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors
> despite the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the workload
> and number of clients remaining
Preston Hagar writes:
>>> tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors
>>> despite the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the workload
>>> and number of clients remaining the same.
> Here are a couple of examples from the incident we had this morning:
> 20
Thanks all for your suggestions. Looks like disabling transparent huge
pages fixed this issue for us. We haven't had it occur in two days now
after the change.
Thanks,
Karthik
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:03 AM, wrote:
> On 01/08/14 19:55, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> I think it would be easier to just exclude the database from the
>> system-wide backup and use a different method for it, rather than
>> engineer the necessary before/after hooks onto the system-wide backup.
>>
>
On 10 Leden 2014, 19:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Preston Hagar writes:
tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors
despite the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the
workload
and number of clients remaining the same.
>
>> Here are a couple of
History question:
Why does select round(3,3) work,
select round(3.0,3) work,
but select round(3.0::real,1) not work?
There's a utility cast in the integer case (described here
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/typeconv-func.html), but not in the
real case.
Is this on purp
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Preston Hagar writes:
>> >>> tl;dr: Moved from 8.3 to 9.3 and are now getting out of memory errors
>> >>> despite the server now having 32 GB instead of 4 GB of RAM and the
>> workload
>> >>> and number of clients remaining the same.
>>
>> >
Paul Ramsey writes:
> History question:
> Why does select round(3,3) work,Â
> Â Â Â Â Â select round(3.0,3) work,Â
> but    select round(3.0::real,1) not work?
The 2-argument round() function actually takes (numeric, integer).
There's an implicit cast from int to numeric, but not an i
What surprises do you think would come from a
round(real, integer) returns real
function?
Just asking the question, I guess I can see the answer, since though round() is
usually used to reduce precision, it’s also possible to use it to increase it
arbitrarily… bah.
It does bug me a fair bit,
Paul Ramsey writes:
> What surprises do you think would come from a
> round(real, integer) returns real
> function?Â
People might expect that rounding to, say, 6 digits produces an exact
decimal answer. Even if you're not exceeding 6 digits overall, it's
unlikely that the answer is *exact*, if
Adrian.
Based on your earlier remarks and further investigation I find that the
restoration of a schema ( -n ) goes smoothly if there are no foreign key
References to the tables being restored from a schema that is not part of the
restoration. I had a couple of those that I had not initially ap
True (?) though I’m guessing the real test for most folks is if printf renders
it as expected. Anything else if icing on the cake, no?
P
--
Paul Ramsey
http://cleverelephant.ca
http://postgis.net
On January 10, 2014 at 1:09:24 PM, Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
to, say, 6 digits produce
@ sameer khan, i got query for all except *Number of cached blocks read,
Number of cached index blocks read, Number of cached sequence blocks read*.
can you tell query for these three counters only?
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/How-to-know-server-sta
Hi Kevin,
I will use whatever techniques you have mentioned.
The situation is unique there was no backup for 300+ GB Database.
If I give the command
select * from pg_largeobject where loid=141066;
it is showing 3 rows
But whenever I want to export to lo_export it says loid missing it says
sramay wrote:
> select * from pg_largeobject where loid=141066;
>
> it is showing 3 rows
>
> But whenever I want to export to lo_export it says loid missing
Perhaps pageno = 0 is missing for that object? Perhaps you need
something in pg_largeobject_metadata for the object permissions? I
would
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 04:10:25PM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 12/27/2013 02:52 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >On Friday, December 27, 2013, Joseph Kregloh wrote:
> >
> >FYI, some testing showed that playing around with spclocation in
> >pg_tablespace is not recommended.
> >
> >
> >
36 matches
Mail list logo
