The code you display is not related to "reindexing". (Compare: REINDEX). It gets a sequence behind a serial column (or IDENTITY column in Postgres 10 or later) back in sync - by setting it to the maximum existing ID. Consider this query instead:
SELECT setval('tablename_id_seq', max(id)) FROM tablename;
No subselect needed, no off-by-one error to fix (the ...
You can restore all affected tables into a different schema, there are a variety of ways in which you can do that (several good ideas in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4191653/i-want-to-restore-the-database-with-a-different-schema).
Once the table is in a separate schema, you can compare them by primary key, and insert the missing ones, like so for ...
No, those are not "duplicated", those are additional relations/objects created for the tables.
reversion_revision_pkey is most probably the unique index supporting the primary key for the table reversion_revision.
And the others are most probably indexes as well.
You can add this expression to your query to see the actual type of the relation:
I'm not sure how to phrase this, but this type of application isn't what Django is made for.
Django is made for simple CRUD based websites, with an admin interface that comes for free, but I don't think trying to shoehorn a search engine in an MVC framework is going to work very well. (however there may be extensions by now, my Django experience is old and ...
There is an interesting thing in RDS postgresql. I had the same issue, normal pg_dump won't work. Use the below command
pg_dump -Fc -v -h [endpoint of instance] -U [master username] [database] > [database].dump
Refer link: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/PostgreSQL.Procedural.Importing.html
UPDATE: see this answer for a working example of the below
How would I store it? What you've got is
User data (formatted_address)
Normalized address breakdown (address_components)
I would store only the formatted_address or whatever the user provided. Why?
I don't trust Django or whatever you're integrating with
I want the ability to re-normalize ...
The reason that this command worked:
psql --set=sslmode=verify-full -h DBHOST -p DBPORT -U USERNAME DBNAME
Is that --set just creates a user-defined variable inside the psql program with the name of 'sslmode'. That name is not special to psql, it does nothing with your connection options and you just connect without ssl.
The problem is that SELECT COUNT(*) FROM django_session WHERE django_session.last_login >= '2019-02-23 13:00:37' is a slow query. Your process list is showing this taking 3133 seconds so far and hasn't completed.
If there was an index on the last_login column in django_session this would likely be quicker.
ALTER TABLE django_session ADD KEY (last_login)
The 4.6 minute COMMIT is nearly definitive that your IO system is either grossly inadequate, or just completely hosed. Which would explain all the rest of the problems. If connections can't commit, they won't ordinarily be closed, so they build up. Eventually you get "ERROR: no more connections allowed". If a client gives up on waiting for a commit ...
The long commit times indicate that I/O on the database server is seriously overloaded. The machine seems to come to a crawl, so that it cannot respond to connection requests in a timely fashion any more.
Examine the database workload and see what causes the overload.
Using multiple schemas to implement a multi-tenant scenario is a feasible solution if you have few tenants. If you have too many tenants, you will end up with too many tables, and that will make life quite painful for you.
If you have many tenants, you could use one table for all tenants and use a column like tenant_id to identify them. If you don't want ...
It doesn't matter much if you use an uuid or a bigint.
If you generate the keys in one database, using a bigint column with a sequence has the advantage that it uses only 8 bytes instead of 16. Also, counting an integer up is cheaper than generating a UUID.
UUIDs shine if keys are generated in several places independent from each other and the resulting ...
The problem is if the table grows large, the time to copy will keep on
increasing and it would allow system to make changes to the balance
while it's being copied.
Yes, but your copy doesn't have to care about that. When doing an INSERT INTO target_table SELECT ... FROM source_table ..., any change that occur in source_table during the INSERT is ignored....
Here is a super easy project example with 2 apps and 3 schemes that cross each other with ForeignKey
The idea is to define each model with the schema and table that need to use
db_table = u'"app1\".\"on_app_one"'
I did similar work to this many moons ago - I worked for an airline, but it's more or less the same thing!
A critical thing to get right from the start is terminology - yes, I know that you just want to start coding! :-) However, life will be much easier if everyone is singing off the same hymnsheet!
In the airline for which I worked, the word "flight" had ...
I tried manually adding a test user and the TABLE_ROWS was updated "4270" but when I select I get only the test user I added. Anyway, I learned that TABLE_ROWS is only a rough estimate and I guess it is not updated regularly enough.
This may be the most silly answer, but when I changed my pgbouncer file, it worked like a charm.
client_tls_sslmode = verify-full
client_tls_key_file = /var/lib/postgresql/9.5/main/server.key
client_tls_cert_file = /var/lib/postgresql/9.5/main/server.crt
client_tls_ca_file = /var/lib/postgresql/9.5/main/rootCA.crt
part was just after the [databases] part, ...
FROM `trackdata_lead` AS tl
WHERE `site_id` = 41
AND EXISTS( SELECT * FROM `trackdata_trackrecord` AS tr
WHERE tl.id = tr.lead_id
AND `timestamp` >= '2016-12-20 23:...
I understand you might not still be looking but it might help someone else. The best way to do this, in my opinion, would be a simple OneToOne or ForeignKey on your new model to User. In the admin you can override the User admin and add an inline:
model = FbDetails
extra = 1 # Or however many you would ...