| From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig O'Shannessy <craig(at)ucw(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: int8 primary keys still not using index without manual |
| Date: | 2003-11-07 15:11:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3FABB625.9070500@wildenhain.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Craig,
Craig O'Shannessy schrieb:
> I'm using EJB CMP (Enterprise Java Beans, Container Managed Persistence),
> so the SQL is generated. I would think this is a common usage of
> PostgreSQL, as a database for a modern EJB container. There are options
> for fixing this (not including fixing postgres itself), IMHO the best is
> patching the JDBC PreparedStatement code so that setLong() adds '::int8'.
> The advantage here is that you can use hand coded prepared statements, as
> well as auto CMP ones, and both will get the proper cast.
>
> The real problem is that PostgreSQL out of the box is not really usable
> for CMP! This really isn't good, and I'm always suprised that it's not
> fixed. It was very luck we found the bug on the website when we were
> evaluating PostgreSQL against Oracle, it wasn't easy to track down or fix,
> and it causes truly horrible performance problems.
>
> I spose you'd call it my pet peeve.
>
I agree with you wholeheartly - it also bothers me why
postgresql can cast [0-9]+ to int4, but only
'[0-9]+' to int8 or int2, I really cannot see the
difference.
Any ideas where we have to look for the place to patch?
Regards
Tino
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-07 15:18:28 | Re: Changing the buffer size |
| Previous Message | Thierry Missimilly | 2003-11-07 14:40:59 | Re: Changing the buffer size |