Hello everybody,
I am currently running two PostgreSQL servers on two different machines. One
of them I use for development and the other one as the "real" production
server for my applications.
While developing new versions of these applications, I of course have to
modify the database schem
endet: Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2007 19:51
An: Stanislav Raskin
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Updating a production database schema from dev server
On 10/16/07, Stanislav Raskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I am currently running tw
I don't know whether I did understand you entirely, but you might want to
take a look at the UNION clause:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/sql-select.html#SQL-UNION
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Stefan Schwarzer
OR: column "account_id" does not exist
What exactly goes wrong here? I simply do not understand, why the first,
more complex query works with the alias, but the second one does not. Did I
misunderstand the meaning and usage of such aliases as got_t2_id?
Thank you very much in advance.
Stanislav Raskin
I messed up a little while reformatting, the error message is of course:
ERROR: column "got_t2_id" does not exist
_
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Stanislav Raskin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 12:33
An: pgsql-general@post
Note to self: works if I directly reference outer query column name from the
inner query.
Still no Idea why it does not work with the alias.
t2.active
AND (
(SELECT COUNT(id) FROM t4 WHERE t2_id = t2.id AND value=10) <= 3
)
Will the subquery be evaluated twice, or is postgres smart enough to somehow
cache the result from the first call of the subquery?
Kind Regards
Stanislav Raskin
-
> should do the trick without double select, or?
Indeed it seems to do so. The cost estimation is even about 10 times less
with the real application's queries.
I never really used group/having even though being aware of their existence.
I probably should do so more often.
]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 19:54
An: Stanislav Raskin
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Understanding Aliases
> SELECT-list output aliases name the *output* columns of the SELECT.
> Those output columns are not available to the SELECT's computatio
Hello everybody,
I have a table like this one:
id value order_field
1 103
2 124
3 101
4 5 8
5 122
What I want to do, is to do something like
SLECT DISTINCT ON (my_table.value)
my_
An: Stanislav Raskin
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] SELECT DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY
maybe this?
select value, max(id) as id, max(order_field) as order_field
from mytable
group by value
order by 3
2008/3/28, Stanislav Raskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello eve
thing wrong?
I'd be thankful for any advice.
Kind Regards
--
Stanislav Raskin
livn GmbH
Campus Freudenberg
Rainer-Gruenter-Str. 21
42119 Wuppertal
+49(0)202-8 50 66 921
ras...@livn.de
http://www.livn.de
livn
local individual video news GmbH
Registergericht Wuppertal HRB 20086
Geschäft
is strictly PHP, so I was thinking about using a single
persistent connection
(http://de.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-pconnect.php) for all calls. Is
there some sort of major disadvantage in this approach from the database
point of view?
Kind regards
--
Stanislav Raskin
--
Sent via pgsql-gener
multi-master replication, load balancing and high availability. To
introduce connection pooling to this setup could turn out to be quite a
big project.
--
Stanislav Raskin
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://ww
temmer to create tsqueries? Thus, I hope
to create a fast user experience while searching, but at the same time
have more detailed tsvectors and more matches.
Regards
--
Stanislav Raskin
>
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On 11.05.11 17:04, "t...@fuzzy.cz" wrote:
>We had exactly the same problem and persistent connection solved it.
First testing with persistent connections seems to work like a charm. Will
do some thorough testing and watch the memory load. Hopefully, I will not
trip over some sort of pitfall. Go
On 11.05.11 17:31, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>You really, really, really need to fix whatever is preventing you from
>using pooling. Opening a database connection to run one query is just
>horridly inefficient.
Very true. I did not mean that anything actually prevents us from using
pooling. We just
Hello everybody,
I have some weird behaviour with a pretty simple query, which I use in a web
front end to browse through pages of data.
SELECT
foo.id, get_processing_status(foo.id) AS status, foo.name,
foo.valid_until
FROM
foo
WHERE foo.active AND foo.valid_un
which is not the case, because serial ids
are not necessarily continuous (i.e. if some data sets were deleted).
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Scott Marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 31. August 2008 17:26
An: Stanislav Raskin
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Betreff: R
19 matches
Mail list logo
