Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications?

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Didier Gasser-MorlayDate: 1999-11-25 10:11:22
Subject: Completely new and discovering PostGresSql
Previous:From: Jason C. LeachDate: 1999-11-25 09:22:40
Subject: can I do this.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group