Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
Yes, you're right as usual.
As usual ? Do you think your father can be wrong on you ? :-)
Gaetano
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, you're right as usual.
I had not thought about playing with ORDER BY on a field which has only
one value in the result set.
If you write it as
SELECT WHERE topic_id=2 ORDER BY topic_id DESC,id DESC.
then an index on (topic_id, id) will work fine. The mixed ASC/DESC
ordering is n
G u i d o B a r o s i o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, problem solved.
> A previous ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN over this table was performed.
> By some reason, truncate didn't work then. Would like to know why...it does not
> seems to be a very frequent problem, due to the fact I only found one ch
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Pierre-Fr=E9d=E9ric_Caillaud?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> suppose I SELECT WHERE topic_id=2 ORDER BY topic_id ASC,id DESC.
> Postgres does a seq scan, but it could think a bit more and start at
> "first index node which has topic_id>2" (simple to find in a btree) th
Ok, problem solved.
A previous ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN over this table was performed.
By some reason, truncate didn't work then. Would like to know why...it does not seems
to be a very frequent problem, due to the fact I only found one chat on the mailing
lists talking about this issue, and was
Sorry for crossposting, didn't know where to post.
Any hint/help on this?!
db_postgres1=# truncate ref_v2_drs_valid_product ;
ERROR: expected both swapped tables to have TOAST tables
I need to truncate this table, this is the first time I see this error.
Regards,
Guido
--
