"Golden Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... The first update DOES insert index entries into unique_key's index.
Right, but weren't you proposing to make it not do so?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In v
On 9/18/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Golden Liu wrote:
>> I try to solve this problem this way:
>> First, update the table t but DON'T update the index.
>> Next, find all the tuples updated by this command and insert
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 09:16 +0800, Golden Liu wrote:
> this problem
I'm sorry but I don't see any problem. Why would you want to issue that
kind of SQL statement?
Assuming you really do, why not just DELETE/re-INSERT ?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Golden Liu wrote:
>> I try to solve this problem this way:
>> First, update the table t but DON'T update the index.
>> Next, find all the tuples updated by this command and insert them into
>> the unique index.
> I suspect that y
On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Golden Liu wrote:
Suppose there are too tuples in a table t, named
id
---
1
2
and there is a unique index on id. Now we do an update on table t
update t set id=id+1
Since PG executes the update one tuple at a time, it updates tuple "1"
to "2" and insert it into the
Suppose there are too tuples in a table t, named
id
---
1
2
and there is a unique index on id. Now we do an update on table t
update t set id=id+1
Since PG executes the update one tuple at a time, it updates tuple "1"
to "2" and insert it into the index. Before insert into the index, it
check wh
