X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587C08B9E4F for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34161-05 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:14:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from laughter.local (unknown [61.197.227.146]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AE78B9E21 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:14:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by laughter.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9A1484263; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:14:46 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <42021EAD.90104@t1.unisoftbg.com> References: <42021EAD.90104@t1.unisoftbg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org From: Michael Glaesemann Subject: Re: pg primary key bug? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:14:45 +0900 To: pginfo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.002 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/60 X-Sequence-Number: 20171 On Feb 3, 2005, at 21:53, pginfo wrote: > I am using pg 7.4.5 on RedHat AS 3.0. > sklad21=# \d a_constants_str > Table "public.a_constants_str" > Column | Type | Modifiers > ------------+-----------------------+----------- > constname | character varying(30) | not null > fid | integer | not null > constvalue | character varying(30) | > Indexes: > "a_constants_str_pkey" primary key, btree (constname, fid) > > sklad21=# select * from a_constants_str ; > constname | fid | constvalue -----------+-----+------------- > AACCGRID | 0 | SOF_3 > AKLTYPID | 0 | SOF_3 > ADARID | 0 | SOF_2 > AOBLASTID | 0 | SOF_6 > AUSERID | 0 | SOF_17 > ANMGRID | 0 | SOF_21 > LOCAID | 0 | SOF_41 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCPLAID | 0 | SOF_1052900 > AKLIID | 0 | SOF_18740 > DOCRID | 0 | SOF_2268142 > DOCPOGPLA | 0 | SOF_324586 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > AKLGRID | 0 | SOF_45 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > ASETUPID | 0 | SOF_4605 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > TDOCID | 0 | SOF_337 > TDOCRID | 0 | SOF_19450 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > AGRADID | 0 | SOF_256 > DOCID | 0 | SOF_1585254 > ASLUID | 0 | SOF_46 > NASTRF | 0 | SOF_88 > ANOMID | 0 | SOF_1200 > (30 rows) > > > Pls., see the records with 'DOCID' and note we have primary key > defined. It's unclear from just this data, but there's a chance that there are varying numbers of spaces after 'DOCID', which would appear as separate values for the index, even though they aren't readily apparent. Could you show us the results of the following query? select constname, length(constname) as constname_length from a_constants_str; Here's another one which would show if PostgreSQL is treating them equally: select constname, count(constname) from a_constants_str; The results of these queries might shed some light on the issue. Hope this helps. Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com