[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("wisan watcharinporn") writes:
> please help me ,
> comment on postgresql (8.x.x) performance on cpu AMD, INTEL
> and why i should use 32 bit or 64 cpu ? (what the performance difference)
Generally speaking, the width of your I/O bus will be more important
to performance than th
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:23:19AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Which is faster, where the list involved is fixed? My thought is that
since it doesn't have to check a seperate table, the CHECK itself should
be the faster of the two, but I can't find an
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:23:19AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Which is faster, where the list involved is fixed? My thought is that
> since it doesn't have to check a seperate table, the CHECK itself should
> be the faster of the two, but I can't find anything that seems to validate
> tha
Which is faster, where the list involved is fixed? My thought is that
since it doesn't have to check a seperate table, the CHECK itself should
be the faster of the two, but I can't find anything that seems to validate
that theory ...
The case is where I just want to check that a value being
"wisan watcharinporn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> comment on postgresql (8.x.x) performance on cpu AMD, INTEL
> and why i should use 32 bit or 64 cpu ? (what the performance difference)
For most database applications, you're better off spending your money
on faster disk drives and/or more RAM th
Generate them all into a table and just delete them as you use them.
It's only 1 rows...
Chris
Choe, Cheng-Dae wrote:
> I need to generate unused random id with format is ID[0-9]{4}
> so i write below query but it seems to be too slow
>
> SELECT * FROM (
> SELECT user_id FROM (
>
