> PostgreSQL can't currently avoid reading the table, because that's
> where the tuple visibility information is stored. We've been making
> progress toward having some way to avoid reading the table for all
> except very recently written tuples, but we're not there yet (in any
> production versio
Hello
I think this SQL returns the following error.
ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "email_track"
LINE 3: email_track.count AS "Emails_Access_Count",
^
For a fact ,this SQL does not have the "email_trac" table in from-clause.
1)Is this SQL right?
2)If the SQL is right, ca
Hi,
It's not immediately obvious what the default value of "timezone"
> will be?
>
The system's locale, like now(); documentation can clarify.
By named parameter, I meant default value. You could construct a timestamp
variable using:
construct_timestamp( year := 1900, hour := 1 )
When I read
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... (We presumably want
>> timezone to default to the system timezone setting, but I wonder how
>> we should make that work --- should an empty string be treated as
>> meaning that?)
> Umm. NULL could be made to mean tha
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis wrote:
>>> Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
>>> year)? This could be potentially confusing:
>
>> How so? If it does named parameters
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis wrote:
>> Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
>> year)? This could be potentially confusing:
> How so? If it does named parameters, why not all?
There's no reason not to allow the year
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> We could have a function like:
> construct_timestamp(year int4, month int4, date int4, hour int4, minute
> int4, second int4, milliseconds int4, timezone text)
This fails to allow specification to the microsecond level (and note
that with float timestamps even small
Can you provide these details
work_mem
How much physical memory there is on your system
Most out of memory errors are associated with a high work_mem setting
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:25 AM, AI Rumman wrote:
> Whenever I run this query, I get out of memory error:
>
>
> explain analyze
> select
Whenever I run this query, I get out of memory error:
explain analyze
*select *
email_track.count AS "Emails_Access_Count",
activity.subject AS "Emails_Subject",
crmentity.crmid AS EntityId_crmentitycrmid
*from *
(select * from crmentity where deleted = 0 and createdtime between (now() -
interval
Any more idea, please.
Is table partition a good solution for query optimization?
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Amit Khandekar <
amit.khande...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10 June 2010 18:47, AI Rumman wrote:
>
>> I am using Postgresql 8.1 and did not find FETCH_COUNT
>>
>>
> Oh ok. Lo
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We had a little chat about this with Magnus. It's pretty surprising that
>> there's no built-in function to do this, we should consider adding one.
>
> I agree; you should be able to create a timestamp or a date from integer
> values. O
Hi,
We had a little chat about this with Magnus. It's pretty surprising that
> there's no built-in function to do this, we should consider adding one.
>
I agree; you should be able to create a timestamp or a date from integer
values. Others, apparently, have written code. The implementation I did
12 matches
Mail list logo
