Hi,
Does the number of rows affect how long it takes to execute a query.
I have 3 UNIONS.
One table has 97 rows, another has 7375 rows, and 1558;
In each union there are at least one LEFT OUTER JOIN and each subselect
has at least 2 JOINed tables.
Something like this:
select ..,..,,...,
on 05/30/2001 16:33, Josh Berkus at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris,
>
Thanks Josh - that was my next step. At the moment, the database is not in
production, I'm running a Progress database there, but I'm trying to learn
the dos and don'ts in PG. I don't really need to backfill the records, I
Hi,
Indexes are used to find a record faster in a table.
It only seems to work if I am working with one table.
eg)
> create index customer_id_idx on customer(id);
> select * from customer where id=1;
-- This uses the index I create
However, when I start to join 2 or more tables together it doe
Chris,
> I'm busy writing an application using PostGreSQL and PHP, so my db
> reads are
> 'stateless' and I don't know at record 'write' time which record I
> have read
> to begin with. The records I have, have an index, most tables do have
> a
> unique index but the index values could get change
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even the postgresql documentation asserts something similar to this:
You're reading obsolete documentation. There is no such assertion
(as far as I can find, anyway) in the 7.1 documentation. The speed
advantage of bpchar --- which was always extremely margina
Hi all,
I'm busy writing an application using PostGreSQL and PHP, so my db reads are
'stateless' and I don't know at record 'write' time which record I have read
to begin with. The records I have, have an index, most tables do have a
unique index but the index values could get changed during an u
On 30 May 2001 12:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> You are operating under misinformation about what's efficient or not.
> There are no performance penalties that I know of for varchar ... if
> anything, bpchar is the less efficient choice, at least in Postgres.
> The extra I/O costs for those
On 30 May 2001, Mark wrote:
> On 30 May 2001 11:16:35 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
> > > > is not implicitly trimming the bpchar befo
On 30 May 2001 11:16:35 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
> > > is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
> > > incorr
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
> > is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
> > incorrect behavior. Is my opinion valid?
>
> regression=# create tab
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Koen Antonissen wrote:
> Now this one doesn't:
> Table "teams"
> Attribute | Type | Modifier
> ---+-+--
> id| integer | not null
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
> is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
> incorrect behavior. Is my opinion valid?
regression=# create table foo (f1 char(20));
CREATE
regression=# insert i
I am testing my SQL commands in pgaccess before I put them into my C++ code.
Trying to copy a table using...
SELECT * INTO TABLE copy_stuff FROM the_stuff
It creates the view but no table called copy_stuff exists after I run it. Why?
I can use...
CREATE TABLE copy_stuff AS SELECT * FROM the_stuff
I have the same problem, my primary key is defined as a serial though.
Other tables use tables are defined as serials as well, but DO use Index
Scans
some tables do, some tables don't, even when creating 'my own' index on
the primary key, it still uses sequencial scans!
This one works fine:
I use a few of them, and in my opinion there is a distinct group of
characters at last in the 8859-1 character set which have a lower and
upper case instance. The ranges are 0xC0 to 0xDD for upper case and 0xE0
to 0xFD for upper (with the exception of 0xD0, 0xD7, 0xF0, and 0xF7).
I haven't examin
It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
incorrect behavior. Is my opinion valid? If so, how difficult of a fix
would this be in terms of time and effort? Should I submit a bug report
to anothe
It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
incorrect behavior. Is my opinion valid? If so, how difficult of a fix
would this be in terms of time and effort? Should I submit a bug report
to anothe
It appears that the behavior of a bpchar compare with a string literal
is not implicitly trimming the bpchar before the compare, which IMHO is
incorrect behavior. Is my opinion valid? If so, how difficult of a fix
would this be in terms of time and effort? Should I submit a bug report
to anothe
=?iso-8859-1?Q?DI_Hasen=F6hrl?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I want to create a rule *r_name*, I get the message, that this rule st=
> ill exists and when I want to drop my rule *r_name*, I get the message: Cla=
> ss '37632' not found
Curious. That seems to indicate that the table the old
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If upper() and lower() operate on characters in 8859-1 and other character
> sets when the appropriate locale is set, then a difference in the behavior
> of upper() and lower() would seem like a bug.
Au contraire ... upper() and lower() are not sy
Hello,
I have a problem to drop a rule from my
database.
When I want to create a rule *r_name*, I get the
message, that this rule still exists and when I want to drop my rule *r_name*, I
get the message: Class '37632' not found
Please, can anyone help me to solve this
problem.
Thanks i
> I've got a nasty query that joins a table onto itself like 22 times.
> I'm wondering if there might be a better way to do this, and also how
> I can left join every additional table on the first one. By this I
> mean that if f1 matches my criteria and therefore isn't null, then
> every other joi
> I have a table that has the following columns: AUTHOR_NO, ASMT_CODE, &
> STATUS. The table would look something like this:
> AUTHOR_NO ASMT_CODE STATUS
> 12345 1 PASSED
> 12345 2 FAILED
> 12345 3 FAILED
> 12345 4 PASSED
> 12346 1 PASSED
> 1234
Can you please explain in little more detail? I am curious.
I haven't noticed any discussion about upper() being different from
lower() when it comes to such comparisons. As far as I know, upper()
and lower() only operate on ascii characters a-z. If you are using the
default locale, neither func
24 matches
Mail list logo
