Hi guys,
A nub question here since I could not figure it out on my own:
I'm using Hamachi to connect different sites into a VPN and their address
always starts with 5.*.*.* - the problem I'm facing is that I cannot make the
access restricted to that particular range only.
Currently I got :
host a
Jon Nelson writes:
> The only thing I have left are these statements:
> get_call_result_type
> TupleDescGetAttInMetadata
> BuildTupleFromCStrings
> HeapTupleGetDatum
> and finally PG_RETURN_DATUM
> It turns out that:
> get_call_result_type adds 43 seconds [total: 54],
> TupleDescGetAttInMetadata
On 10/12/11 04:30, Tom Lane wrote:
However, it's not apparent to me why you would see any difference
between 8.2 and 8.4 on this type of query. I tried a query analogous
to this one on both, and got identical plans. I'm guessing that your
slowdown is due to not having updated statistics on the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jon Nelson writes:
>> I've got a 5GB table with about 12 million rows.
>> Recently, I had to select the distinct values from just one column.
>> The planner chose an index scan. The query took almost an hour.
>> When I forced index scan off, the
Jon Nelson writes:
> I've got a 5GB table with about 12 million rows.
> Recently, I had to select the distinct values from just one column.
> The planner chose an index scan. The query took almost an hour.
> When I forced index scan off, the query took 90 seconds (full table scan).
Usually, we he
I've got a 5GB table with about 12 million rows.
Recently, I had to select the distinct values from just one column.
The planner chose an index scan. The query took almost an hour.
When I forced index scan off, the query took 90 seconds (full table scan).
The planner estimated 70,000 unique values
Hello
2011/12/13 Aleksej Trofimov :
> We have tried foreach syntax, but we have noticed performance degradation:
> Function with for: 203ms
> Function with foreach: ~250ms:
>
> there is functions code:
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION input_value_fe(in_inputs numeric[], in_input_nr
> numeric)
> RETUR
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> I was experimenting with a few different methods of taking a line of
>> text, parsing it, into a set of fields, and then getting that info
>> into a table.
>>
>> The first method involv
We have tried foreach syntax, but we have noticed performance degradation:
Function with for: 203ms
Function with foreach: ~250ms:
there is functions code:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION input_value_fe(in_inputs numeric[],
in_input_nr numeric)
RETURNS numeric AS
$BODY$
declare i numeric[];
BEGIN
Hello
do you know FOREACH IN ARRAY statement in 9.1
this significantly accelerate iteration over array
http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2011/03/07/waiting-for-9-1-foreach-in-array/
2011/12/13 Aleksej Trofimov :
> Hello, I wanted to ask according such a problem which we had faced with.
> We are
Hello, I wanted to ask according such a problem which we had faced with.
We are widely using postgres arrays like key->value array by doing like
this:
{{1,5},{2,6},{3,7}}
where 1,2,3 are keys, and 5,6,7 are values. In our pgSql functions we
are using self written array_input(array::numeric[],
11 matches
Mail list logo
