X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AB09FB256 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:39:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16186-01 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:39:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14929FB250 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:39:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so253832nfe for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:39:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=NByP7umnF1bdH0zREZAHg/yFvQFQ01zzk0jD9j9bmI4wFSxchQSwX97uF3B146SB5LsTzkbuAqRlgwtUK1/JdZTXOH1oSJBNkt6cQmb+UXMPeFKiYNBaP8GOEMY6WB9OWzs4Ede73n3lWYDaHEbM3/v64WnRtK1swE7W6Zb5Nk0= Received: by 10.78.165.16 with SMTP id n16mr12531hue; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.131.18 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:39:14 -0700 From: aurora To: "Jaime Casanova" Subject: Re: Unexpected SQL error for UPDATE Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_12073_1392008.1152729554072" References: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/192 X-Sequence-Number: 25766 ------=_Part_12073_1392008.1152729554072 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Yes that helped! reindex index users_email_address_text_key; UPDATE users set email_address_text=email_address; It kind of works now. Or at least it does not result in error. The UPDATE query is running for more than an hour and still hasn't return. This is inline with what we have seen before that coping 1 million fields seems to be excessively slow. About the index, it is created implicitly because of the UNIQUE constraint. At this point right after the column is added, they are all null. wy On 7/12/06, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > users_email_address_text_key sounds a lot like an index... is it an > index? if so, what happenned if you REINDEX the table or even DROP and > CREATE the index again? it certainly sounds to an index corruption. > > -- > regards, > Jaime Casanova > > ------=_Part_12073_1392008.1152729554072 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Yes that helped!

  reindex index users_email_address_text_key;
  UPDATE users set email_address_text=email_address;

It kind of works now. Or at least it does not result in error. The UPDATE query is running for more than an hour and still hasn't return. This is inline 
with what we have seen before that coping 1 million fields seems to be 
excessively slow.

About the index, it is created implicitly because of the UNIQUE constraint. At this point right after the column is added, they are all null.

wy

On 7/12/06, Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com> wrote:
users_email_address_text_key sounds a lot like an index... is it an
index? if so, what happenned if you REINDEX the table or even DROP and
CREATE the index again? it certainly sounds to an index corruption.

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova


------=_Part_12073_1392008.1152729554072--