Forgive me in advance for this terribly novice question...
I have the following function which was written in MS SQL Servers
trigger/rule language...
CREATE TRIGGER [Sync_Deals] ON [dbo].[Deals]
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
begin
declare @Found int
declare @deal varchar(10)
I'm using PostgreSQL version 7.3.2, and generate_series() is not
available, so this is a function to generate a series dates.
The function goes backwards if the second argument is less than the first
one. Check the two select statements at the end.
Best Regards,
Roger Tannous.
CREATE FUNCTION
Hi list,
It is possible to retrieve information about the server hardware via
postgreSQL ?
Regards,
--
Ezequias Rodrigues da Rocha
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
If you use a plpgsql function to select the row you want to validate,
it will make life much easier. Something like
...
$$
declare
my_row a_row_type;
is_ok integer;
begin
select into my_row * from a_row_type where
is_ok := my_a_validate(my_row);
return is_ok;
$$
...
On Apr 4,
Hi list,
Could someone give me a little help with my settings ?
How do I increase my performance knowing that my server is a huge server.
Here some parameters I suppose are important on this settings:
shared_buffers;8000kB;Sets the number of shared memory buffers used by
the server.
How do I increase my performance knowing that my server is a huge server.
Here some parameters I suppose are important on this settings:
shared_buffers;8000kB;Sets the number of shared memory buffers used by
the server.
max_connections;100;Sets the maximum number of concurrent connections.
--- Paul Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose being when a row in a table in one database is updated, it
will copy (or replicate I guess) the record into a different table into
another database in the same server. (deleting said record first if it
already exists)
What is the best
My solution that works is:
select date_range as rdate,
case
when rsgsid is not null then 2
when aid is not null then 1
else 0
end as status
from date_range('2007-04-01','2007-04-30')
left join availability a on a.asid = 1 and (date_range,date_range) overlaps
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2007 14:36 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It is possible to retrieve information about the server hardware via
postgreSQL ?
You'd have to write your own function.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of
On 4/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is possible to retrieve information about the server hardware via
postgreSQL ?
Ezequias,
Please read the manual and use Google.
You're still asking two or three questions per day which could easily
be answered in already published
Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
--- Paul Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose being when a row in a table in one database is updated, it
will copy (or replicate I guess) the record into a different table into
another database in the same server. (deleting said record first if it
already
Hi all
I ran a simple query like the one displayed below and it takes a lot of time
to execute on this table.
This table has 48 million recordsand i worry about this table a lot coz
i need to perform join on this
table with some other table having around 13 million recordsI've tried
Tom Lane wrote:
Bryce Nesbitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got a DELETE FROM that seems to run forever, pegging the CPU at
100%. I can't figure out why it's slow. Any clues?
Unindexed foreign key constraints pointing to this table, perhaps?
EXPLAIN ANALYZE would give a great
But I DELETE all conflicting those rows prior to the slow DELETE, just
so the FK check is never hit. Should I be looking at subverting the FK
check mechanism somehow? The necessary index would be huge, and
relevant only on this particular operation which happens every few
months, if that.
am Wed, dem 04.04.2007, um 23:17:54 -0400 mailte Sumeet folgendes:
sm= explain analyze select * from ma limit 10;
QUERY
PLAN
Richard Broersma Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I DELETE all conflicting those rows prior to the slow DELETE, just
so the FK check is never hit. Should I be looking at subverting the FK
check mechanism somehow? The necessary index would be huge, and
relevant only on this particular
A. Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am Wed, dem 04.04.2007, um 23:17:54 -0400 mailte Sumeet folgendes:
sm= explain analyze select * from ma limit 10;
QUERY
PLAN
am Thu, dem 05.04.2007, um 1:27:25 -0400 mailte Tom Lane folgendes:
A. Kretschmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am Wed, dem 04.04.2007, um 23:17:54 -0400 mailte Sumeet folgendes:
sm= explain analyze select * from ma limit 10;
QUERY
PLAN
18 matches
Mail list logo