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
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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.