On 13/11/15 10:49, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>> These indexes were *not* created by PostgreSQL.
>> We are not Oracle.
>
> Well, Oracle does not create indexes on its own either - it has the same
> strategy as Postgres:
> Indexes are only created automatically for primary keys and unique
>
On 09/10/15 20:52, Sean Rhea wrote:
[...]
>-> Index Scan using customers_pkey on customers (cost=0.00..64192.97
> rows=184 width=8) (actual time=103.354..126.459 rows=359 loops=1)
> Filter: (group_id = 45)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 141684
> Total runtime: 146.659 ms
[...]
On 25/02/15 15:42, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Arjen Nienhuis a.g.nienh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 19 Feb 2015 17:12, brian br...@meadows.pair.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I have a single-user application which is growing beyond the
fixed-format data files in which
On 2011-01-03 06:29, Karen Springer wrote:
We are running RHEL 4.1 which is why the newer version did not install with
RHEL.
RHEL 4.1 should be offering pgsql 8.1.15 in the apps channel
(Red Hat Application Stack v1).
- Jeremy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
On 2011-01-02 08:31, Karen Springer wrote:
We are using PostgreSQL 8.1.4 on Red Hat, Microsoft Access 2002
psqlodbc_09_00_0200.
You don't say which RedHat.
RHN offers 8.1.22 for RHEL5 currently.Are you not running regular updates?
- Jeremy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
On 2010-12-21 10:42, Massa, Harald Armin wrote:
b) creating an index requires to read the data-to-be-indexed. So, to have an
index pointing at the interesting rows for your query, the table has to be
read ... which would be the perfect time to allready select the interesting
rows. And after
On 2010-12-21 14:26, t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Why not auto-create indices for some limited period after database load
(copy? any large number of inserts from a single connection?), track
those
that actually get re-used and remove the rest? Would this not provide
a better out-of-the-box experience
On 2010-12-21 18:50, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Then the index you just built gets automatically dropped, as I said above.
I'm a bit confused. Should the indexes be dropped automatically (as you
state here) or kept for the future. Because if they should be dropped,
then it does not make sense to do
On 04/03/2010 11:16 AM, Dino Vliet wrote:
If I have two tables with the same number of rows but different columns and I
want to create one table out of them what would be the way to do that in
postgresql?
Table A has N number of rows and columns X,Y,Z and Table B has N number of rows
and
On 08/17/2009 03:24 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 16/08/2009 9:06 PM, NTPT wrote:
So I suggest we should have random_page_cost and
Sequential_page_cost configurable on per tablespace basis.
That strikes me as a REALLY good idea, personally, though I don't know
enough about the planner to factor
Jacek Becla wrote:
create table t(d real, check(d=0.00603));
insert into t values (0.00603);
ERROR: new row for relation t violates check constraint t_d_check
Because equality is not well-defined for real values?
- Jeremy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Simon Riggs wrote:
The idea of auto rebuilding indexes following recovery has already been
proposed, so is under consideration. It hasn't been proposed in relation
to the use case you mention, so that is new.
If we did as you suggest then it would speed up the base backup but
would also add
Gregory Stark wrote:
So, what do people say? Is Postgres perfect in your world or does it do some
things which rub you the wrong way?
As a further take on the auto-tuning others have mentioned,
how about some auto-indexing?
- Jeremy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Jolles, Peter M (GE Infra, Energy) wrote:
I am trying to migrate several years of historical data with timestamps
from an MS Access database to Postgres. I am running into an issue where
specific dates/times get pushed one hour ahead, which creates duplicate
date/time stamps or failes the import
,
Jeremy Harris
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
One of the advantages
of breaking up your data into partitions, as professed by Simon (I think)
(and I agree), is that you have smaller indexes, which improve performance.
And maybe having one huge index managing the uniqueness across partitioned
data just defeats the idea
into active_users and inactive_users allows me to
tell the database (indirectly) that the active users index should stay
in memory, while the inactive users can relegated to disk.
-Nathan
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Jeremy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
One
Chander Ganesan wrote:
Jeremy Harris wrote:
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.1.2 20070418 (Red Hat 4.1.2-10)
We have one problematic table, which has a steady stream of entries
and a weekly mass-delete of ancient history. The bloat query from
Hi,
We're starting to run autovacuum for the first time on a system
that's been running with nightly cron-driven vacuum for some time.
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
20070418 (Red Hat 4.1.2-10)
We have one problematic table, which has a
Christopher Browne wrote:
Is it possible that this table didn't see many updates, today?
Nope; about 24000 (according to the id sequence).
- Jeremy
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
Only under Solaris. With Linux or BSD on it it ran pretty well. I
had a Sparc 20 running RH 7.2 back in the day (or whatever the last
version of RH that ran on sparc was) that spanked an Ultra-2 running
slowalrus with twice the memory and hard drives handily.
Solaris has gotten much
rebuild or not?
Cheers,
Jeremy Harris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list
You don't give a pg version.
It looks legal to me as of 8.1.
Try replacing all the {0,1} with ? - but
check the manual for regex_flavor too.
Is there any chance you're in basic mode?
- Jeremy
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to
23 matches
Mail list logo
