Hmmm, you're right.
Is there any way to do a
explain select * from id_val_tbl where false
while explain doesn't tell SEQ_SCAN?
I have to admit that I didn't performance tested this. I just saw explain
writing SEQ_SCAN.
|-Original Message-
|From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:35:37AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> Is it possible to check plpgsql functions before they're actually
> into the database, as it's done w/ sql functions ?
What version of PostgreSQL are you using? 8.0 and later have a
validator function for PL/pgSQL, although its
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible to check plpgsql functions before they're actually
> into the database, as it's done w/ sql functions ?
8.0 does a little bit of this, and 8.1 will do more...
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Hi folks,
Is it possible to check plpgsql functions before they're actually
into the database, as it's done w/ sql functions ?
Often I've got the problem that a function still contains some
syntax errors (well, nobody's perfect), but my application is
quite critical (a single crashing trigger m
"Tambet Matiisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Standard technique is to rewrite OR queries to UNION queries. I believe
> PostgreSQL optimizer does not do that automatically. So you could try instead:
> select * from id_bal_tbl where $1 is null
> union all
> select * from id_bal_tbl where id = $1
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION getval(integer)
> RETURNS SETOF id_val_tbl AS
> $BODY$
> select * from id_bal_tbl where ( $1 is null )or (id=$1 ); $BODY$
> LANGUAGE 'sql' VOLATILE SECURITY DEFINER;
>
>
> It works fine, however an index is never used (if just one
> record is requested). The c
If you have a row every 15 seconds, the answer is quite easy:
SELECT
A1.date
FROM
activity A1
LEFT JOIN activity A2 ON (A2.date=A1.date-'15 secs'::interval)
WHERE
A1.state<>A2.state OR A2.state IS NULL
ORDER BY 1
Now if you don't have a row every 15 seconds, the answer is a bit more
Hi ,
I have table that represent a switch activity like this :
| date| state |
| 2005-04-20 17:00:00 | 0 |
| 2005-04-20 17:00:15 | 0 |
| 2005-04-20 17:00:30 | 1 |
| 2005-04-20 17:00:45 | 1 |
| 2005-04-20 17:01:00 | 1 |
| 2005-04-20 17:01:15
Marinos Yannikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't PostgreSQL behave in a different way in this case? (e.g. just
> not use the index):
Good catch. But why are you using a hash index for this?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
Shouldn't PostgreSQL behave in a different way in this case? (e.g. just
not use the index):
Table "public.forum_messages"
message_id | integer | not null default
nextval('forum_messages_message_id_seq'::text)
parent_userid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Muhyiddin A.M Hayat") writes:
>> There is an easy way to do this; write a plpgsql set returning
>> function which adds the balance to the last column of the table. That
>> query will always have a cost in both time and memory proportional to
>> the size of the table, and the me
There is an easy way to do this; write a plpgsql set returning
function which adds the balance to the last column of the table. That
query will always have a cost in both time and memory proportional to
the size of the table, and the memory cost may bite you as table size
grows...
--
Can you give
There is an easy way to do this; write a plpgsql set returning
function which adds the balance to the last column of the table. That
query will always have a cost in both time and memory proportional to
the size of the table, and the memory cost may bite you as table size
grows...
--
Can you give
Hi all,
I think I have got a usual problem. I'm asking here, however, because I
wonder why it works this way.
The problem is to write a fcn that eihter returns all records or just
one/none filtered by some expression. For example get a value by id or
return all values if the given id is null.
F
14 matches
Mail list logo
