Hi
sorry for my english
My serwer is:
p4 2.4 Ghz, 1 GB RAM, data from postgres on RAID 0 SCSI
(hardware scsi)
some tables (about 15) have 50.000 position, and all data (pgdumpall) are
about 600 MB
I have apache 1.3.29 - and he use the database for generate pages.
So my problem is performance thi
Quoting Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Javier Carlos wrote:
>
> > Quoting Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Javier Carlos wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please enter a FULL description of your problem:
> > > > -
So I've finally gotten around to applying this patch for cursors...
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/src/backend/executor/nodeUnique.c
1.34.2.1
Now it's POSSIBLE that I've managed to screw up something fundamentally
simple in the patch/make/install process, so step by step.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So I've finally gotten around to applying this patch for cursors...
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/src/backend/executor/nodeUnique.c
> 1.34.2.1
Why would you think that patch alone would solve all the issues with
running cursors backwards? It
Quoting Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Javier Carlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >When I make a SELECT with many tables (more than 12), postgresql eats
> all my
> > %CPU and I've waited more than 1 hour and stays the same. The weird thing
> is
> > that with 10 tables the same select with th
Your name : Margus Väli
Your email address : mvali at hot.ee
Dear Administrator,
My name is Do, live in Vietnam.
I am a beginner to learn PostgreSQL Database. I have
installed Postgres_beta4 for Windows 2000 Advanced
Server, and it is working very good several days (a week).
I have created database, table, etc. Everything I have
done very good. Until n
I have a table with 14,655,100 rows in it. No unique keys.
I have an index on the fields "symbol", varchar[12], and "qdate", int4 as
format=MMDD.
I have a field called "expmoyr", char[6] as format=Mmm-YY.
I have a field called "last", float4.
The SQL command:
SELECT last FROM table WHERE symb
I am having some difficulty with building PostgreSQL 7.4 from source code.
I am not using any special options -- just running ./configure and gmake
(using GNU Make version 3.79.1). I am using an x86 based system running
Slackware Linux 8.1 (kernel version 2.4.18).
Running the regression tests with
Ngo Cong Do wrote:
> Dear Administrator,
> My name is Do, live in Vietnam.
> I am a beginner to learn PostgreSQL Database. I have
> installed Postgres_beta4 for Windows 2000 Advanced
> Server, and it is working very good several days (a week).
> I have created database, table, etc. Everything
Margus Väli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> COPY command tries to create a buffer too large in size when the
> file copied is larger than about 500 bytes.
Can anyone else reproduce this? I did the following with a fairly
recent CVS snapshot:
1. Copied the supplied text data to a file, fixed up
"Steve Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SQL command:
> SELECT last FROM table WHERE symbol='Symbol' AND expmoyr='Mmm-YY' ORDER BY
> qdate DESC LIMIT 1;
>
> This query works fine when there is more than one record meeting the
> criteria. When there is only 1, the query locks and no result
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Steve Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The SQL command:
>> SELECT last FROM table WHERE symbol='Symbol' AND expmoyr='Mmm-YY' ORDER BY
>> qdate DESC LIMIT 1;
>>
>> This query works fine when there is more than one record meeting the
>> criteria. Whe
Breen Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The result of this ambiguity is that the
> latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
Our interpretation
Something very important was recently raised on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list. Due to the current environment that SCO is fostering in the
open source community, it would be prudent for the PostgreSQL team to
consider this issue.
The website claims that "PostgreSQL is distributed under the flexible
Tom Lane wrote:
> Breen Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The result of this ambiguity is that the
> > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
>
> We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
> We do not have the right to, nor any interest in do
Richard Welty wrote:
> but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
> changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
> to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
> advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
> all the code in
Richard Welty wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:56 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Richard Welty wrote:
> > > but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
> > > changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
> > > to other BSD licens
Richard Welty wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:58:19 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, where did you get this wording? Is this something Berkeley released
> > as one of their versions of the BSD license.
>
> yes, i believe that it originally came from the Berkeley lawyer
19 matches
Mail list logo
