> It seems to me that SELECT ... FOR UPDATE is not the way to go if
> it is possible that the selected record may be held for any length
> of time.
But transactions are supposed to occur very quickly.
> For instance, say you are storing web pages in the database, and you
> want a number of devel
I just finished reading Bruce M's book, so this thread confuses me,
esp. Jan's posts. I take full heed of the need for application level
user/thread management, but I was interested in using a parallel
set-up in PG (however redundant that might be). Now that Jan has
discounted "SELECT...FOR UPDA
in the middle?
It does not matter if you use LOWER or UPPER, and the "problem" does not
occur on databases with encoding SQL_ASCII and lc_collate of C
I have tested this on Postgres 8.1.9, 8.2, 8.2.4 with database encoding
of UTF8 and lc_collate of en_US.UTF8
and on 7.4.16
rows)
And I bet oracle, firebird, sqlite, mssql, and everything else out there
that does utf8 would return it in the "right" order (I'm willing to test
that too if needed..)
If this is potentially a problem in postgres somewhere, point me in the
general direction and I&
now for me ORDER BY LOWER(ASCII(column)), LOWER(column) (or some
variation there of) works, but is there a better workaround?
Thanks,
-Cody
Tom Lane wrote:
Cody Pisto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If this is potentially a problem in postgres somewhere, point me in the
general directio
name FROM users
ORDER BY sortable_name. The application code always appends
sortable_name to the select list because, depending on available
features, sortable_name might be a function call and in a GROUP BY.
Thanks for any insight,
Cody Cutrer
Okay, so why does wrapping the order by in a function fix it? (or not doing
a join, or doing an implicit join)
Cody Cutrer
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Cody Cutrer writes:
> > create table test1 (id integer, sortable_name varchar);
> > create table te
db
Are these the correct steps to perform or is there an easier / in-place way?
Also, when I dump my old DB and restore it, will it be converted appropriately
(e.g. it came from am SQL_ASCII encoding and its going into a UTF-8 database)?
Thank you
/Cody
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Thanks Scott. See below:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> > I would like to change my server_encoding which is currently SQL_ASCII to
> UTF8.
> >
> > I have existing data that I would like
Please see below.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> > Thanks Scott. See below:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Scott Marlowe >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> > Please see below.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Scott Marlowe >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM,
Its a Rails app and I do have:
encoding: utf8
Set in my DB configuration.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Scott Marlowe >
> > wrote:
mand just
ignorant?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> > Its a Rails app and I do have:
> > encoding: utf8
>
>
> Hmmm, if you try this does it work (mostly)?
>
> iconv -f utf-8 -t utf-8 -c < infile > outfile
>
Please see below.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> > That worked, but "file" shows no difference:
> > $ iconv -f utf-8 -t utf-8 -c foo.sql > utf.sql
> > $ file -i foo.sql
> &g
o for "ü" -> "u", "é" => "e", etc.
This is easily done in Solr via the included ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory
You could look at the code to see how they do the co
Thanks y'all for your help on this.
I took this opportunity to upgrade to 9.1.1 which is UTF8 by default and I
ended up manually cleaning up the borked data by hand (there wasn't that
much).
So all is well now.
Thanks again.
/Cody
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Scott Marlowe wr
ad on the new master.
Thanks for any help,
Cody Cutrer
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
the bulk of the I/O to
the non-participating replica, while still doing the "critical" parts
of the backup against the master.
Cody Cutrer
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Cody Cutrer wrote:
> I've got a few questions about initing a new replica. We have a
> modestly la
ences exist, but
none of the data or indexes & constraints.
Any help would be appreciated.
/Cody Caughlan
e above parameters would help. From the
docs it sounds that increasing "vacuum_defer_cleanup_age" to some larger
value might also do the trick.
Any guidance would be appreciated.
/Cody
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Monday, November 07, 2011 11:27:05 am C
-
batch | Create DB | {}|
postgres | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication | {}|
replicator | Replication +| {}|
| 2 connections | |
Any help would be appreciated.
/Cody
Postgres 9.1.1, master with 2 slaves via streaming replication.
I've enabled slow query logging of 150ms and am seeing a large number
of slow COMMITs:
2011-11-12 06:55:02 UTC pid:30897 (28/0-0) LOG: duration: 232.398 ms
statement: COMMIT
2011-11-12 06:55:08 UTC pid:30896 (27/0-0) LOG: duration:
I've run VACUUM ANALYZE on all my tables to make sure the house has
been cleaned. I still see a lot of slow queries / commits, even on
primary key lookups and well indexed tables.
/Cody
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Cody Caughlan wrote:
> Postgres 9.1.1, master with 2 slaves via s
o test by copying
it to a temporary table and adding the index there). My question is if
there is a way to create the index on the system table somehow for
just my database, and if not how would the developer community react
to the suggestion of adding an index to a system table in the default
pos
o test by copying
it to a temporary table and adding the index there). My question is if
there is a way to create the index on the system table somehow for
just my database, and if not how would the developer community react
to the suggestion of adding an index to a system table in the default
pos
e_is_visible (rel oid) cost 50;" the query planner is now
avoiding that function, and doing other filtering first. The queries
are all a few seconds now, but not multiple minutes.
Cody Cutrer
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Cody Cutrer writes:
>> I've got a
That's awesome, thanks! Yeah, I doubt I'll do that to our production
database, but maybe I'll try it on a copy sometime down the line.
Adjusting the cost for pg_table_is_visible is working well enough so
far.
Cody Cutrer
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> C
27 matches
Mail list logo
