On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 18:13, Tomasz Myrta wrote:
> Dnia 2003-11-17 19:00, Użytkownik Michele Bendazzoli napisał:
> > a is always present in the queries ... and other that (a, ab, abc) i
> > have only to query (ac): so I think I have to index separately only
> > (ac).
>
&
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:23, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Suppose by example that one have a table1 with a primary key over three
> > field (a, b, c):
> ..
> > are the indexes over (a) and (a, b) redundant (and so useless)?
>
> Yes, they are redundant not not necessarily useless.
>
> In short, an index
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Michele Bendazzoli writes:
>
> > ALTER TABLE public.table1
> > ADD CONSTRAINT table1_pkey PRIMARY KEY(a, b, c);
> >
> > are the indexes over (a) and (a, b) redundant (and so useless)?
>
> Exactly.
&g
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:15, Tomasz Myrta wrote:
> Dnia 2003-11-17 18:00, Użytkownik Michele Bendazzoli napisał:
> > p.s. I know, I'll have to begin to use the explain command ...
> > I promise I'll do it ;-)
>
> Use the explain analyze command and then answer yo
I wonder if is useless to set some indexes for columns contained in a
multifield primary key.
Suppose by example that one have a table1 with a primary key over three
field (a, b, c):
ALTER TABLE public.table1
ADD CONSTRAINT table1_pkey PRIMARY KEY(a, b, c);
are the indexes over (a) and (a, b)
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 20:13, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Thanks for reporting, Michele.
Thank to you! The speed and level of your responses exceeds every my
more rose-colored expectation ;-)
> In the meantime, you might want to use a
> BEFORE INSERT trigger in PL/pgSQL that tries to UPDATE the row and i
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 18:29, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Not entirely. On which table(s) are the REFERENCES constraints and are
> they separate per column constraints or are they multi-column constraints?
here are the constraints of the abilitazione table
ALTER TABLE public.abilitazione
ADD CONSTRAINT
I have found a strange behaviour that I don't know if is a bug or not.
I have three tables:
* abilitazione with a primary key of (comuneid, cassonettoid, chiaveid)
* cassonetto with a primary key of (comuneid, cassonettoid)
* chiave with a primary key of (comuneid, chiaveid)
and two foreign key
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, BenLaKnet wrote:
> just one question
>
> You use zope with postgresql ??
yes.
> No problem of connection ?
Until now no. I use debian unstable.
ciao, Michele
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 09:12, Michele Bendazzoli wrote:
ops ...
apologies for the message.
Michele
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 23:01, Dieter Maurer wrote:
cut
> > What do you think of?
>
> When your data fits well in a relational database
> (a huge number of highly structured records, no full text indexes),
> put it in Postgres. Otherwise, try the ZODB.
> Make some preliminary mass tests before your
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:05, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Friday 22 August 2003 12:59, Michele Bendazzoli wrote:
> > I think i found a bug in PL/PGSQL: when i use a parameter bigint (int8)
> > and call the function from psql an error message which says that "the
> > functio
I think i found a bug in PL/PGSQL: when i use a parameter bigint (int8)
and call the function from psql an error message which says that "the
functioname(bigint) doesn't exist" is displayed.
If i turn the int8 to int4 all works fine ...
Now i use two int4 instead of one int8: is advisable?
ciao,
13 matches
Mail list logo
