I think the subquery approach should be something like:
---
select id, pg_sleep(0.1) from (select id from thing offset 90 order by tag)
last_things
---
Is that right?
Then what if the interface is exposed as a view? e.g.,
---
create view thing_interface as select id, tag, pg_sleep(0.1) from thi
Greetings,
In the case where you have a 'local' server, from which you are working with
foreign tables. And the foreign tables are partitioned. As each of the
partitioned tables is a table in its own right, is it correct to assume the
table (relation) size limit of 32 TB applies? For example, pr
Hi,
Using JDBC, I batch insert multiple rows (/"executeBatch()/"). I then use
/'//getGeneratedKeys("id")/' to get the generated ids ("id" is a "/SERIAL PRIMARY KEY/" column).
My question: does the PostgreSQL JDBC driver /guarantees /that the order of the returned generated
ids will be the sam
Thank you, Steve -
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 6:50 PM Steve Baldwin
wrote:
> Can't you just use table aliases? So, the outer word_moves would become
> 'word_moves as wm', word_puzzles would become 'word_puzzles as wp', and the
> where clause 'WHERE wp.mid = wm.mid' ?
>
table aliases have worked for
Can't you just use table aliases? So, the outer word_moves would become
'word_moves as wm', word_puzzles would become 'word_puzzles as wp', and the
where clause 'WHERE wp.mid = wm.mid' ?
hth,
Steve
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:08 AM Alexander Farber
wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> in PostgreSQL 13.1 I
Good evening,
in PostgreSQL 13.1 I save player moves in the table:
# \d words_moves
Table "public.words_moves"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable |
Default
-+--+---+--+--
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 9:00 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Maybe not “simpler” but for all those checks you could write a single
> query that pulls out all the data at once into a record variable and test
> against the columns pf that instead of executing multiple queries.
>
Thank you!
On Sunday, December 6, 2020, 孙冰 wrote:
> The skipped rows by an OFFSET clause have to be computed nevertheless. I
> am wondering if there could be any chance to improve, since the computation
> is on the *entire* rows rather than on the *criterial* columns.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't understand the po
