On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Franck Routier
wrote:
>
>
> My best guess would be that the index got stuffed full of entries for
> rows that are not visible, either because they are not yet committed, or
> have been deleted but are not yet vacuumable. Do you have any long-lived
> transactions
Hi,
>
> That is not equivalent to a distinct. There must be more to it than that.
Indeed, this query is used in a loop:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION small_distinct(IN tablename character
varying, IN fieldname character varying, IN sample anyelement DEFAULT
''::character varying)
RETURNS SETOF any
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Franck Routier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are using a mono-column index on a huge table to try to make a quick
> 'select distinct ' on the column.
>
> This used to work fine, but... it does not anymore. We don't know what
> happened.
>
> Here are the facts:
>
> - request:
Hi,
we are using a mono-column index on a huge table to try to make a quick
'select distinct ' on the column.
This used to work fine, but... it does not anymore. We don't know what
happened.
Here are the facts:
- request:
SELECT dwhinv___rfovsnide::varchar FROM dwhinv WHERE dwhinv___rfovsnide
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 10:05 PM, Nick Eubank wrote:
>Amul: thanks for the followup! Unfortunately, setting locally faces the same
>limitation
>as setting things in the config file --
>I get an "ERROR: 3072000 is outside the valid range for parameter "work_mem"
>(64 .. 2097151)
>SQL st
