Hello,
On Sep 3, 2012, at 21:23 , Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> Great tips from #postgresql:
>> 1. ORDER BY col USING ~<~ - apparently undocumented, but it sorts the
>> right way.
>>
>> 1) can use indexes that use the text_pattern_ops opclass
>
> Comparisons like < and > would then be replaced by
Hello,
On Sep 4, 2012, at 20:50 , Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> 2. ALTER TABLE records ADD order name VARCHAR(255) BINARY
>> Then you don't care about the CHARSET used by the server.
>> This syntax always set the binary collation specific for that charset
>
> This is a good tip I did not know
Hello Erkan,
On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:34 , erkan yanar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 07:19:45PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> OUR QUESTIONS:
>> 1b. Is VARBINARY the best way to do it for MySQL?
>
> Afaik you want only to have the ordering (collation) to be binary. So you
> have some ways to
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 07:19:45PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are working hard to get 3.1.1 out the door, fixing the last remaining
> DNSSEC issues. Since 3.1, we have discovered two issues that require some
> re-engineering and may have database impact. We could really use som
Hello Peter,
I removed some parts from your email to make it easier to read.
> ISSUE 1: ordername sorting
>
> 1a. How do we tell Postgres to do "the right thing" for us, preferably
> in a way that does not force all users to do a dump/restore? We
> wouldn't mind an ALTER TABLE or the like!
> 1b.
Hello Seth,
On Sep 3, 2012, at 19:54 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> 1b. Is VARBINARY the best way to do it for MySQL?
>
> Yes. A similar issue was seen in sql-based bayes databases for
> SpamAssassin tokens and the solution is to use BINARY for the token col
> instead of CHAR. Generic fixes are best.
Hello,
On Sep 3, 2012, at 21:15 , Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Great tips from #postgresql:
> 1. ORDER BY col USING ~<~ - apparently undocumented, but it sorts the right
> way.
>
> 1) can use indexes that use the text_pattern_ops opclass
Comparisons like < and > would then be replaced by ~<~ and
Hello,
On Sep 3, 2012, at 19:19 , Peter van Dijk wrote:
> OUR QUESTIONS:
> 1a. How do we tell Postgres to do "the right thing" for us, preferably in a
> way that does not force all users to do a dump/restore? We wouldn't mind an
> ALTER TABLE or the like!
> 1b. Is VARBINARY the best way to do i
On 9/3/12 10:19 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> ISSUE 1: ordername sorting
>
>
> Passing '-l C' to createdb fixes this, but that would involve a dump/restore.
> I also understand that with Postgres 9.1, there are ways to alter the
> column's collation settings without a full dump/restore, but
Hello,
On Sep 3, 2012, at 19:19 , Peter van Dijk wrote:
> ISSUE 2: non-empty terminals
This heading should have said 'empty non-terminals'. I don't think I will ever
learn. Apologies!
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
Netherlabs Computer Consulting BV - http://www.netherlabs.nl/
_
Hello,
we are working hard to get 3.1.1 out the door, fixing the last remaining DNSSEC
issues. Since 3.1, we have discovered two issues that require some
re-engineering and may have database impact. We could really use some input on
these issues.
ISSUE 1: ordername sorting
As you may know, w
11 matches
Mail list logo
