From: | marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de |
---|---|
To: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker) |
Cc: | marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de, sbirch(at)ironmountainsystems(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-novice(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications? |
Date: | 1999-11-25 09:43:38 |
Message-ID: | 199911250943.KAA02595@feki.phoenix-edv.netzservice.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de wrote:
>
> > a) Due to the database layouts we are in need of doing all these nice
> > sql-statements like "group by" and "having" ... and as posted earlier
> > in this group: they're limited in PostgreSQL.
>
> Since I use 'Group By' quite a bit...Having not so much...can you be more
> specific on the problems?
This has been discussed on the e-mail lists (sql) this month several times.
Tom also mentioned the reason for that. If I remember correctly:
The having construct in sub-selects are not interpreted correctly and may
not return the result one hope should be the result.
select * from TABLE-A
where AO IN
(select AO from TABLE-B where ... group by AO having 2<count(*))
Statements like these do NOT work.
They mean: return all rows from table-a if you have at least two rows
on table-b having the identical AO value.
> > b) We had problems with vacuumdb here and there. Some times it cored.
> > We've deleted a 300 MB database under psql and the backend cored ...
>
> What version of PostgreSQL?
>
6.5.1
Marten
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Didier Gasser-Morlay | 1999-11-25 10:11:22 | Completely new and discovering PostGresSql |
Previous Message | Jason C. Leach | 1999-11-25 09:22:40 | can I do this. |