Title: Query Plan
Have a question regarding when a Query Plan uses an Index.
I have a basic statement
This query uses the Index Scan:
explain analyse select * from tablea where columna_id < 57
This query uses Seq Scan:
explain analyse select * from tablea where columna_id < 58
There a
Theo Galanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> error: btree item size 2744 exceeds maximum 2713.
>
> I assume I had to change some server settings to extend the maximum, however
I would guess the block size. But I'm just guessing.
> in the end this column holds content, and even applying a
Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 18:48, Josh Berkus wrote:
Theo, Oliver,
Any reason why you don't like ~ '^([0-9]?)+\.?[0-9]*$' ?
Yes, because it also matches "." , which is not a valid numeric value.
~ '^([0-9]+|[0-9]+\\.[0-9]*|[0-9]*\\.[0-9]+)$'
Ah, the brut
Does anyone know how I could check to ensure circular references are no
created in my 2 table heirachy structure?
Here are the tables
albums album_relations
++ +-+
| album_id | | parent_album_id |
| title | | child_album_id |
+-
Title: RE: [SQL] Isnumeric function?
Thanks Tom,
Actually I did not attach the latest function, I did have a limit of 9 numerical characters, found that out when I applied the update to move all current numerical values to that column.
Theo
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto
Theo Galanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I came up with the following. A Insert/update trigger would call a
> procedure to check to see if the content is numeric(a whole number), if so
> would update an indexed integer column called (content_numeric). Which would
> be the base column to sear
Title: RE: [SQL] Isnumeric function?
Thankyou all for your feedback. I actually only want to check for whole numbers, so the ~ '^[0-9]+$' _expression_ is good.
The issue really is that our CMS system sometimes holds the value of primary keys within a "content" varchar column(don't ask!), whic
Implementers:
Just noticed that the postgres stddev is the stddev_sample formula.
There are two different ways to calculate this value.
Their difference is very small with large samle size. It would be nice
to distinguish the two different versions.
I also noticed that oracle has stddev_sampl
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 18:48, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Theo, Oliver,
>
> > Any reason why you don't like ~ '^([0-9]?)+\.?[0-9]*$' ?
>
> Yes, because it also matches "." , which is not a valid numeric value.
>
> > ~ '^([0-9]+|[0-9]+\\.[0-9]*|[0-9]*\\.[0-9]+)$'
>
> Ah, the brute force approach ;-)
Theo, Oliver,
> Any reason why you don't like ~ '^([0-9]?)+\.?[0-9]*$' ?
Yes, because it also matches "." , which is not a valid numeric value.
> ~ '^([0-9]+|[0-9]+\\.[0-9]*|[0-9]*\\.[0-9]+)$'
Ah, the brute force approach ;-)
Actually, the above could be written:
~ '^([0-9]+)|([0-9]*\\.[0-9
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:47, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Oliver, Theo:
>
> > ~ '^[0-9]+$'
>
> Actually, I usually do:
>
> ~ '^[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*$'
>
> ... to include decimals. However, the above assumes that there is at least a
> "0" before the decimal; it would be nice to adapt it to matching a lead
Andrei,
> I have a database, where in the tables I have around 100 constrains (link
> to other tables) that don't have a name "" or they have a name
> like "$1" "$2". Now, I have a module which bases on the same structure, but
> I get some query errors from a "" constraint. I really don't know
> e
Oliver, Theo:
> ~ '^[0-9]+$'
Actually, I usually do:
~ '^[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*$'
... to include decimals. However, the above assumes that there is at least a
"0" before the decimal; it would be nice to adapt it to matching a leading
decimal (i.e. .057 ) as well. Can't see any easy way, though
13 matches
Mail list logo
