o what you want. I think.
The problem is probably speed. I have done a lot of tests, and when
OFFSET gets to a few thousands on a multimega-recs database, it gets
very very slow... Is there any other to work around that?
Alain
---(end of broadcast)---
one for each phone number).
I tried using both the name and the primary key (with a combined index),
to get faster to the record I want, but I was not sucessfull in building
a where clause.
I would appreciate any help, in fact this is my primary reason for
joining this list ;-)
Al
tremely fast with 600 records and it looks like
the few redundant or empty queries (but very fast) will not be a problem.
What is your opinion about this (apart that it is a bit complex :) ??
Alain
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched
ng postgre 7.4.1)
The 3rd order by is not indexed, but it operates in a memory table of no
more than 200 so it is fast too.
Please comment on this. I tested and it worked but I really new to sql
and I feel insecure...
Thanks,
Alain
[how to solve the get next 100 records problem]
BUT, I th
gs go sour...
Can someone explain it please?
thanks,
Alain
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Tom Lane escreveu:
Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there anything I can do, to convince PG to return the first row more
quickly?
Are you now looking for the LIMIT ?
SELECT * FROM table LIMIT 1;
and when when you wnat the rest of it:
SELECT * FROM table OFFSET 1;
; ),the pentium gcc group in this
case used gcc 2.95.2,applied their pentium patches and released the thing
as pgcc 2.95.3,that's the stock compiled used by mandrake.
Alain Toussaint
casts >>
What am I doing wrong ??
Alain Lavigne - Data Administrator - ZAQ.iTv - E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
297 St-Paul, West - Montreal, Quebec, Canada - H2Y 2A5
Phone: 514-282-7073 ext: 371
Fax: 514-282-8011
I'm trying to extract references (relationships) between tables for the
purpose of reverse/forward engineer from a modeling tool called
PowerDesigner.
Here is the sql:
select u.usename,
p.relname,
v.usename,
c.relname,
t.tgconstrname,
dumpref(t.tgargs, 4), **
..2264.16 rows=1 width=8)
EXPLAIN
I don't understand why it's not using the defined index, even after performing VACUUM
FULL ANALYZE on the table.
I tried disabling seqscan but that didn't change anything.
I'm open to suggestions anyone
Thanks!
---
Thanks that worked, but why does that happen or maybe you could point to the proper
thread so I read up on it.
Alain Lavigne - Data Administrator - ZAQ Interactive Solutions E-Mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED
ults and 2
for identification. I would like to store 10 years online, so 15.000.000 rows. What
about the size of index ?
Any advise ? I thank you in advance.
Alain Reymond
(I hope that it is clear enough with my bad English).
---(end of broadcast)-
(#assessment_nr, labtest_nr) for only one integer and one real per row. And I
can have up to 1.500.000 rows per year with at least 10 years on line... It means big
indexes.
Regards.
Alain
> I would go for the second one. I think the size of the table is not a
> problem. You will have j
for your suggestions.
Regards.
Alain Reymond
CEIA
Bd Saint-Michel 119
1040 Bruxelles
Tel: +32 2 736 04 58
Fax: +32 2 736 58 02
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP key sur http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your
.
What I would like to calculate is (AValue2-AValue1) for a given Num
(here num1).
In this case, I would have to calculate
60-50 for Num 10
and
43-55, 62-43 for Num 25.
Do you have any idea if it can be done simply with a request...
I thank you
Regards.
Alain Reymond
15 matches
Mail list logo
