Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:39:02 +0100
Sam Mason s...@samason.me.uk wrote:
who num mails of total
Tom Lane 1,9358.0%
Scott Marlowe 1,0774.5%
Alvaro Herrera 5212.2%
Joshua Drake4681.9%
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 18:25:25 Ron Mayer wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
You can be sure that discussion of this topic in this forum will soon be
visited by religious zealots, but the short answer is nulls are bad,
mmkay. A slightly longer answer would be that, as a general rule,
If I may, I got an instance once, where table with bytea field was
pretty slow. Turned out, that queries modified everything apart from
bytea bit.
moving it to separate table actually helped performance.
But that only will happen providing that you have the
bytea/text/whatever that won't change,
Hi all,
I'm designing a Postgresql database, and would appreciate this design advice.
I've got a fairly straightforward table that's similar to a blog table
(entryId, date, title, author, etc). There is, however, the
requirement to allow a single, fairly bulky binary attachment to
around 1% of
Ian Mayo ianm...@tesco.net writes:
I've got a fairly straightforward table that's similar to a blog table
(entryId, date, title, author, etc). There is, however, the
requirement to allow a single, fairly bulky binary attachment to
around 1% of the rows.
There will be a few million rows, and
Cheers Tom,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ian Mayo ianm...@tesco.net writes:
[snip]
No. You'd basically be manually reinventing the TOAST mechanism;
or the large object mechanism, if you choose to store the blob
as a large object rather than a plain
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:56:35PM +0100, Ian Mayo wrote:
One more thing: hey, did you hear? I just got some advice from Tom Lane!
Statistically speaking; he's the person most likely to answer you by
quite a long way. Out of the ~24k emails going back to Oct 2007 I've
got from pgsql-general
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:39:02 +0100
Sam Mason s...@samason.me.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:56:35PM +0100, Ian Mayo wrote:
One more thing: hey, did you hear? I just got some advice from
Tom Lane!
Statistically speaking; he's the person most likely to answer you
by quite a long
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 11:56:35 Ian Mayo wrote:
Cheers Tom,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ian Mayo ianm...@tesco.net writes:
[snip]
No. You'd basically be manually reinventing the TOAST mechanism;
or the large object mechanism, if you choose
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Robert Treat
xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Maybe I've been reading too much Pascal again lately, but if only 1% of your
rows are going to have data in this column, personally, I'd put it in a
separate table.
thanks for that Robert - it does match my
Sam Mason wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:56:35PM +0100, Ian Mayo wrote:
One more thing: hey, did you hear? I just got some advice from Tom Lane!
Statistically speaking; he's the person most likely to answer you by
Even so, this might be the #1 advantage of Postgres over Oracle (cost
ianm...@tesco.net (Ian Mayo) writes:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Robert Treat
xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Maybe I've been reading too much Pascal again lately, but if only 1% of your
rows are going to have data in this column, personally, I'd put it in a
separate table.
thanks
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 15:30:28 Ian Mayo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Robert Treat
xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Maybe I've been reading too much Pascal again lately, but if only 1% of
your rows are going to have data in this column, personally, I'd put it
in a
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 05:06:44PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
A slightly longer answer would be that, as a general rule, attributes
of your relations that only apply to 1% of the rows are better
represented as a one to N relationship using a second table.
Have you tried to
Robert Treat wrote:
You can be sure that discussion of this topic in this forum will soon be
visited by religious zealots, but the short answer is nulls are bad, mmkay.
A slightly longer answer would be that, as a general rule, attributes of your
relations that only apply to 1% of the
On Wednesday 8. April 2009, Ron Mayer wrote:
Sam Mason wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:56:35PM +0100, Ian Mayo wrote:
One more thing: hey, did you hear? I just got some advice from
Tom Lane!
Statistically speaking; he's the person most likely to answer you by
Even so, this might be the
16 matches
Mail list logo
