Hi,
I've got a number of files containing generic log data & some of the lines
may or may not be duplicated across files that I'm feeding into a database
using Perl DBI. I'm just ignoring any duplicate record errors. This is fine
for day to day running when the data feeds in at a sensible rate, h
If I perform the following 2 selects, the first one is EXTREMELY slow where
the 2nd one is very fast.
(1) Slow
select
o.orderid,
ol.itemcode,
ol.itemname
from
orders o,
orlines ol
where
o.orderid = '1234' and
ol.orderid = o.orderid;
(2) VERY FAST
select
o.orderid,
ol.itemco
I have a SQL which uses a function for one of the returned rows. This
stored function does calculations that are expensive & slow. I am looking
for ways to speed up this query but having no luck.
Any SQL geniuses out there help me with this?
select
o.orderid,
ol.itemcode,
ol.itemname,
ol.
I like the idea of putting it on a hard disk or partition of fixed size and
waiting for the DB to simply crash.
hahaha
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mauricio,
>
> > Hi, is there any way to limit the database size??
>
> First, this is a question fo
In article <000c01c21cab$c2f35ef0$6901a8c0@bethvizx>, "Beth Gatewood" wrote:
> all-
> Could somebody tell me why I would use default 0 vs default '0' in the
> following
> CREATE TABLE foo (col1 INTEGER default 0) <-- or default '0'
>
0 is an integer
'0' is a string
default '0' might work (t
hi all
In postgresql 7.1.3
i am updateing a row. it is a 4th record.
after updation if i am firing a select query it is
coming as a last record ..what shall i do to avoid
that..
any help appriciated
thankz in advance
regards
subha
__
Do You Ya
"Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select
> o.orderid,
> ol.itemcode,
> ol.itemname,
> ol.uom,
> qty_available( ol.itemcode, ol.uom ) as "Qty On Hand"
> from
> orders o,
> orderlines ol,
> where
> o.status = 'OPEN' and
> ol.orderid = o.orderid and
> qty_onhand( ol.itemcode, ol.uo
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Subhashini Karthikeyan wrote:
> In postgresql 7.1.3
>
> i am updateing a row. it is a 4th record.
> after updation if i am firing a select query it is
> coming as a last record ..what shall i do to avoid
> that..
> any help appriciated
If I understand the complaint, use an
dear subha,
Use explicit ORDER BY if u want to order the records
by some column.
otherwise the order of output from a select stmt is undefined.
bu generally it is found the the last updated record comes last.
On Wednesday 26 June 2002 17:17, Subhashini Karthikeyan wrote:
> hi all
>
>
> In post
Hi folks,
the problem is to update one table by querying another.
i have a table where i store apache access logs where one of the fields is the host ip
address.
i need to find corresponding country for all the ip addrresses.
for this i have another table that contains apnic,arin and ripe data
Hi,
-- Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I perform the following 2 selects, the first one is EXTREMELY slow
> where the 2nd one is very fast.
[...]
> Why would 2 be so much faster? I have ran the EXPLAIN on this and index
> scans are being used.
I guess, the first query has to search for
Hello,
we have a simple query here that uses a table such as Foo(id*, bar, baz)
were id is a primary key and then we have an additional index on
Foo(bar, baz). Now, we have a simple query such as this:
SELECT bar, baz FROM Foo WHERE bar='HIT';
The Foo table has about 25 million rows and the abo
Eric,
> I like the idea of putting it on a hard disk or partition of fixed size and
> waiting for the DB to simply crash.
> hahaha
Yeah. It's what MS SQL Server does, though. As I said, I think the
whole concept of limiting database size in MB is fundamentally flawed. I
mean, what's th
>> Yeah. It's what MS SQL Server does, though. As I
>> said, I think the whole concept of limiting database size in
>> MB is fundamentally flawed. I mean, what's the database
>> supposed to do when it runs out of space?
Display a window that says:
"Management has determined that this d
Gunther Schadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would be very eager to have
> index-only reads in PostgreSQL.
It won't happen. See the many, many prior discussions of this point in
the archives.
Something we perhaps *could* do is to "batch" index reads: pull a bunch
of TIDs from the index, sort
Josh Berkus wrote:
Eric,
I like the idea of putting it on a hard disk or partition of fixed size and
waiting for the DB to simply crash.
hahaha
Yeah. It's what MS SQL Server does, though. As I said, I think the
whole concept of limiting database size in MB is fundamen
I use
pg_dump -Fc mydb > dbf
then I create anpther db by:
createdb mydb2
I use
pg_restore -P myfunction -d mydb2 dbf
cannot restore myfunction into mydb2
why??
Jie Liang
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet,
> - Oracle is content with data read from an index if that is all that's
>needed. Indeed, I only need bar and baz and those are in the index.
>The benefits of not having to seek the scattered rows from the data
>table saves 35000 back and forth head movements / seeks.
Postgres can't u
18 matches
Mail list logo
