Thanks for the reply... but which query will be faster and less expensive?
I don't have a table now with 4 million rows, but I'm thinking of building
such a table. Querying it would return 1 row. The alternative is to query
an existing table of 200k rows, and return 800 rows.
Option 1: Query a
Anyone care to correct this regex for PostgreSQL? It works in C++ but
Postgres have no love for it:
-{0,1}\d*\.{0,1}\d+\^{0,1}\d*\.{0,1}\d+
This regex accepts (any num)^(pos num) such as:
45.2^3
-45.2^3
10^2.5
ne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Jon Asher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone care to correct this regex for PostgreSQL? It works in C++ but
> Postgres have no love for it:
> -{0,1}\d*\.{0,1}\d+\^{0,1}\d*\.{0,1}\d+
It works fine in Postgres, AFAICT. Maybe you f
Please ignore, my mistake in the translation to Pg regex !
On 12/12/06, Jon Asher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In Postgres, it appears to be returning false positives:
select * from
(select '52'::varchar As val) d
where d.val ~ '-{0,1}\\d*\\.{0,1}\\d+\\^{0,1}\\d*\\.{0,1}\\
I'm seeing some strange behavior with the following code. It compiles and
runs but returns an error on the Execute statement:
List index out of bounds(0)
DECLARE
srec record;
v_formula varchar;
v_result varchar;
BEGIN
v_formula = 'select 4 as val';
EXECUTE v_formula INTO srec;
END;
H
Hi all,
I've installed
TSearch2 with some success- my table now contains a tsvector field that's
indexed and I can run full text queries.
However, the trigger
that I created to update the full text index when a row is modified appears to
cause a problem. It's returning the error when I r
Hi,
Our new Postgres
database includes a table with about 1 mil records. So far, I've
been impressed with the performance of queries against 1 mil rows.
Unfortunately I just found out that the size of the table will increase to
3 mil records.
Can I expect
Postgres to return results on
I'm running some
very large table update operations (on 2 mil + records) and the queries are
taking 5 + hours to complete. Is there a way to turn off row-level
index updates or something else to make it run more
quickly?
Jon
