On 12/06/2016 02:40 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/06/2016 11:12 AM, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
On 12/06/2016 01:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/06/2016 10:30 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
My thinking is to not store these documents in the database, but to
store
them in subdirectories
On 12/06/2016 01:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/06/2016 10:30 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
My thinking is to not store these documents in the database, but to
store
them in subdirectories outside the database.
Your thoughts?
Due to the widely variable size of a PDF document, I would
On 12/06/2016 01:30 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
With no experience of storing binary data in a bytea column I don't
know
when its use is appropriate. I suspect that for an application I'm
developing it would be better to store row-related documents outside the
database, and want to learn if that
On 04/22/2016 06:21 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
On Thursday 21 April 2016 13:36:54 Guyren Howe wrote:
Anyone familiar with the issue would have to say that the tech world would
be a significantly better place if IBM had developed a real relational
database with an elegant query language rather
Thank you! (Slapping head)
Your regexp seems to do the trick.
On 10/29/2015 01:49 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
On 10/29/2015 11:41 AM, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
I have created a custom type as a domain based on text, which adds a
check constraint using a regexp to limit it to containing digits
On 10/30/2015 09:53 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 10/29/15 5:29 PM, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
I'm just now converting that path to use a custom domain (along with
custom operators) instead of just being a string. (The custom operators
allow the paths to be sorted properly without each segment needing
I have created a custom type as a domain based on text, which adds a
check constraint using a regexp to limit it to containing digits and
'.'. However I am finding I can add values with other characters to a
column of this type. Is this to be expected for some reason?
Or alternately, did I
Thank you! (Slapping head)
Your regexp seems to do the trick.
On 10/29/2015 01:49 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
On 10/29/2015 11:41 AM, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
I have created a custom type as a domain based on text, which adds a
check constraint using a regexp to limit it to containing digits
On 10/29/2015 03:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Rob Sargent wrote:
Also thought I should mention that there is an ip address type if that's
what you're trying to accomplish.
Looking at the domain name, I wonder whether contrib/ltree would be
helpful.
Very observant! This is indeed part of a
Tom Lane wrote:
David Waller daw138a-postg...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
I'm struggling with a database query that under some circumstances returns
the error ERROR: number of columns (2053) exceeds limit (1664).
Confusingly, though, no table is that wide.
This limit would be enforced
I'm in the process taking a large SELECT statement which had been
written using implicit join syntax (that is, just listing all the tables
in the FROM clause, and listing join conditions in the WHERE clause) and
rewriting it to use explicit JOIN syntax (they are all inner joins).
This has sped up
Um, ok. You've listed some conditions in order of how well they should
perform and these generally agree with my understanding. But how does
this relate to the relative performance of the semantically equivalent
explicit and implicit join syntaxes?
Eric
Martin Gainty wrote:
here is my best -
performance anyway, but I'm just
wondering if this behavior is expected.
Eric
Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
I'm in the process taking a large SELECT statement which had been
written using implicit join syntax (that is, just listing all the tables
in the FROM clause, and listing join conditions
Bayless Kirtley wrote:
Yes, I'm afraid you're gonna be out of luck on finding the array type
in any
of
the smaller embedded databases. Honestly, the beg project I've been on
for a
year or so has used Postgres right through full development and testing.
It's
not hard to start and stop the
Alban Hertroys wrote:
On 25 Jul 2009, at 11:36, MS wrote:
can we see an explain analyze at least?
Hi,
Well, it won't be necessary - I mean it looks just like the explain I
sent in my first post.
What first post? The only thing I can find is a reference in a message
by you from
My rule of thumb for when to use to not use cascading deletes is this:
If the what the record represents can essentially be thought of a part
of what the record that it references represents, I use cascading
deletes. If what the record represents has an independent existence,
that it, it does not
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Carlos Oliva carl...@pbsinet.com wrote:
Is there a way to create a database or a table of a database in its own
folder? We are looking for ways to backup the sytem files of the
database to tape and one to exclude some tables from this backup.
Gauthier, Dave wrote:
Is there a way to read an XML file into a postgres DB? I’m thinking
that it will create and relate whatever tables are necessary to
reflect whatever’s implied by the XML file structure.
Thanks for any pointers !
That's a pretty common problem, and not one that
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Robert Pepersack rpepers...@mdinsurance.state.md.us:
I read the document on array data types. Do they have anything at all to do
with PostgreSQL being object-oriented?
If you want to be pedantic, not really. Technically, Postgres isn't
Dara Olson wrote:
Happy spring.
I am new to postgres/postgis and am trying to figure out the best way
to approach documenting metadata within postgres. Has there been
anything developed to add FGDC or Dublin Core standard metadata
records into postgres for each table within the database?
Robert Treat wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:43:02 Liraz Siri wrote:
Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In contrast,
Debian has a much slower release cycle than Ubuntu and is thus
considered by many people to be preferable for production server
applications.
This is in a sense a followup to my post with subject Wildly erratic
query performance. The more I think about it the only thing that makes
sense of my results is if the query planner really WAS choosing my join
order truly randomly each time. I went digging into the manual and
Section 49.3.1.
is when I will
have time to do it).
Thanks again,
Eric
Tom Lane wrote:
Eric Schwarzenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now ordinarily I would interpret this use of the word random loosely, to
mean arbitrarily or using some non-meaningful selection criteria. But
given what I am seeing, this leads
I've got a particular query that is giving me ridiculously erratic query
performance. I have the SQL in a pgadmin query window, and from one
execution to another, with no changes, the time it takes varies from
half a second to, well, at least 10 minutes or so at which point I give
up an cancel the
This is in a sense a followup to my post with subject Wildly erratic
query performance.
The more I think about it the only thing that makes sense of my results
is if the query planner really WAS choosing my join order truly randomly
each time. I went digging into the manual and Section 49.3.1.
is when I will
have time to do it).
Thanks again,
Eric
Tom Lane wrote:
Eric Schwarzenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now ordinarily I would interpret this use of the word random loosely, to
mean arbitrarily or using some non-meaningful selection criteria. But
given what I am seeing
,
but it would certainly answer my question.
Eric
Dann Corbit wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Schwarzenbach
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:35 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] Wildly erratic query
27 matches
Mail list logo
