[GENERAL] Default UUID in Postgres
Hello, I created a Postgres table with a UUID. I want the UUID to be populated by default. Sample table: CREATE TABLE t ( token uuid NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT unique_token UNIQUE (token) ); I tried out this post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-08/msg01452.php CREATE TABLE t (id UUID DEFAULT 'uuid(4)' PRIMARY KEY); and got an error that uuid(4) is undefined. I then tried out: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/uuid-ossp.html using uuid_generate_v4() for the default. That didn't work as well. Can anyone help please? Thanks!
Re: [GENERAL] Using tables in other PostGreSQL database
I am fairly new to Postgres. However, I have to say that I agree with Barry's comments. The community's response is technically valid; they do talk about a better way of 'designing' things, and what the company 'should' be doing. However, coming from a MS-Sql world, people want multiple databases for different reasons. Sometimes, they are in different departments, and they keep their own databases, as in Barry's example. Sometimes, a billing database is behind a firewall for security. There are multiple ways to do the consolidation, by copying over data to a common database with multiple schemas. However, the core question of Barry's has not been answered. 1. There is a feature for cross-linking databases 2. That feature is available as an add-on 3. That feature is very useful for a lot of users, who are not as knowledgeable as the PgSql community, and who are used to doing that for other databases 4. Why not provide that feature as a core feature, rather than an add-on? If the community really feels strongly about this, discourage this practice with a best-practices section, citing problems with examples, and workarounds. But why don't you provide this feature out of the box? After all, isn't widespread adoption of a high quality database like Postgres our overall goal? On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Em Thursday 27 March 2008 08:29:04 Pettis, Barry escreveu: An addon Being self schooled in databases to me this seems to be a kludge. If you work in a large company environment the odds that someone somewhere is all ready storing or collecting data that you need ( by this I mean base data ) could probably be pretty high. So why, if PostGre is so old/established, is the ability to share information between databases have to be done through an add on. So let me give an example to help clarify. 1. I work in a manufacturing environment 2. Our product can have 150 to 450 different / unique process steps 3. We have a description of each process step 4. So with a product we can look at it's flow and see the descriptions of each step Now say person A pulls this information on a daily basis and then summarizes the product manufacturing information and creates a table that has say the total number of process modules ( aka group of steps ), the total number of steps, the total number of a particular type of step. Now let's say that another person NEEDS that very information in a query or table in their own database. Are you saying that each person needs to generate this. To me the sharing of information seems to be so basic that within a said postgre server, that as along as you have access to a said database you should be able to say use the data stored here. And that that ability should be a rudimentary ability not an addon. Reason why I don't' have ability to install addon's onto the database. It sounds to me like your company could make a good use of a DBA to organize all that. Users should just use the data, not plan the database and keep multiple copies of information around. One person designing all this would be able to organize the information, keep its integrity, safety / secrecy and while doing all that also provide the people using the information a better way to get it. If everyone is creating their own database, then getting access to the information isn't the biggest problem. Guaranteeing that all reports are generated from the same information -- imagine sales reporting something from last month while marketing is doing the same for this month and manufacture is insterested on the history for the same month but comparing it to the last three years history? A big mess... -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] NauckIT PostgreSQL provider working with Mono?
Hello, I was about to start on Forms Authentication with Postgres in .NET on Mono. I found this message from Kevin: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg23395.html but didn't find any responses. I was wondering whether anyone got this working, and has any documentation that can help. Thanks
[GENERAL] Cross database joins feature request
Thanks for telling me that Postgres doesn't support cross-database joins. I know MS Sql Server does. And one of the companies I worked for used it, to sometimes have a secure database with sensitive info behind a firewall join queries with a less secure database. Is this something worth considering adding as a feature to Postgres?
[GENERAL] Design suggestion of multiple databases vs multiple schemas within the database
I am building a web app with Postgres, that also uses Drupal with Postgres. I am new to all these frameworks. There is some data that I'll need to cross-reference between the two databases. Can I do a cross-schema/catalog join? Or is a cross-database join better? Are there any gotchas for the cross-schema/cross-database joins that I need to be aware of? Such as when using Shared hosting? Any suggestions/comments appreciated. Thanks
[GENERAL] Unicode comment on Postgres vs Sql Server
I am familiar with MS Sql Server just started using Postgres. For storing Unicode, Sql Server uses nvarchar/char for unicode, and uses char/varchar for ASCII. Postgres has this encoding setting at the database level. I am using UTF8 Unicode for most of my data, but there is some data that I know for sure will be ASCII. However, this is also stored as UTF8, using up more space. At first sight, it looks like the the more granular level design is better. Any comments? If you agree, does it make sense to add this as a new datatype to Postgres? Thanks
Re: [GENERAL] Unicode comment on Postgres vs Sql Server
I didn't have proper knowledge about the UTF8 format, thanks. I originally meant nvarchar nchar, which is basically varchar char that supports Unicode regardless of the database encoding. On 3/2/08, Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Swaminathan Saikumar wrote: I am familiar with MS Sql Server just started using Postgres. For storing Unicode, Sql Server uses nvarchar/char for unicode, and uses char/varchar for ASCII. Postgres has this encoding setting at the database level. I am using UTF8 Unicode for most of my data, but there is some data that I know for sure will be ASCII. However, this is also stored as UTF8, using up more space. This is wrong - ASCII is a subset of UTF8 and therefore uses exactly one byte for every ASCII char. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 for example. At first sight, it looks like the the more granular level design is better. Any comments? If you agree, does it make sense to add this as a new datatype to Postgres? Which new datatype? Regards Tino
[GENERAL] Is PostGreSql's Data storage mechanism inferior?
Hi all, I'm new to PostGreSql. http://searchyourwebhost.com/web-hosting/articles/insight-database-hosting-using-sql Check out the link. I am starting out on a new personal project had zeroed in on PostGreSql with Mono-ASP.NET as ideal for my needs, mainly owing to a PostGreSql whitepaper. Now, I chanced upon the article above. I've pasted the cons as mentioned in the article, and would like the community feedback on it, especially with regards to the inferior Data Storage mechanism. The cons of PostgreSql Hosting * Performance considerations: Inserts and Updates into the PostgreSql database is much slower compared to MySql. PostgreSql hosting thus might slow down the display of the web page online. * BSD license issues: Since PostgreSql comes under the Berkeley license scheme, this is again considered to be too open. * Availability of inferior Data Storage mechanism: PostgreSql uses Postgres storage system, which is not considered to be transaction sae during PostgreSql hosting. * Its not far-flung: While MySql hosting and MSSql hosting have deeply penetrated into the market, PostgreSql hosting still remains to be passive in the database hosting market. * Non-availability of required assistance for PostgreSql hosting: Assistance is being provided via mailing lists. However there is no guarantee that the issue faced during PostgreSql hosting would be resolved. Thanks!
Re: [GENERAL] Is PostGreSql's Data storage mechanism inferior?
Thanks everyone. After all the good things I heard about Postgres, I was surprised to see this article; and the point on storage concerned me. I am glad to see that the article was wrong, not only on the storage engine count, but also on others. Thanks for the feedback. On 1/30/08, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Richard Broersma Jr wrote: If you don't get too much feed back on this subject, just remember that topics like this come up frequently to the point of list member exhaustion. You can find such discussions if you search the list archive. Too true. There's only so many times people can be confronted with Defend yourselves! before they start ignoring it. On the flip side, when you approach with Tell me, what advantages does Postgres have to offer? you'll find many people all too willing to step up with pride. Erik Jones DBA | Emma(R) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
