I can use the pg_indexes view to get the SQL used to create an index (as in the sql in this question: How to get indexes, primary keys, and all constraints for a schema in PostgreSQL using standard sql).
Is there a way to get the SQL for constraints in PostgreSQL? I'm not seeing a pg_constraints table and the information I'm finding on line isn't pointing me to a solution, for example, these are some of the hits coming up when I Google the terms (postgresql get sql for constraint).
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/206562/postgres-read-constraints-definition
Postgres Check Constraint definition
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/sql-query-to-display-all-the-existing-constraints-on-a-table/
Related
For a long time I have been working only with Oracle Databases and I haven't had much contact with PostgreSQL.
So now, I have a few questions for people who are closer to Postgres.
Is it possible to create a connection from Postgres to Oracle (oracle_fdw?) and perform selects on views in a different schema than the one you connected to?
Is it possible to create a connection from Postgres to Oracle (oracle_fdw?) and perform inserts on tables in the same schema as the one you connected to?
Ad 1:
Yes, certainly. Just define the foreign table as
CREATE FOREIGN TABLE view_1_r (...) SERVER ...
OPTIONS (table 'VIEW_1', schema 'USERB');
Ad 2:
Yes, certainly. Just define a foreign table on the Oracle table and insert into it. Note that bulk inserts work, but won't perform well, since there will be a round trip between PostgreSQL and Oracle for each row inserted.
Both questions indicate a general confusion between a) the Oracle user that you use to establish the connection and b) the schema of the table or view that you want to access. These things are independent: The latter is determined by the schema option of the foreign table definition, while the former is determined by the user mapping.
Let's say I am writing a query template to query any table in a PostgreSQL 14 database. The template takes 3 inputs:
table_name, page_number, rows_per_page
And looks like this:
SELECT *
FROM <table_name>
LIMIT <rows_per_page> OFFSET (<page_number> -1)*<rows_per_page>
The problem with the above 'pagination' is that it is unreliable, Postgres doc says that without ORDER BY clause will produce inconsistent results. My question is: is there a way to remedy this problem for a generic table i.e. a table that has no known way to order it (no primary key)? Basically what I am asking is: is there any 'hidden' ordering that Postgres is using and I can access through a query or the tables that have no primary key are inherently unordered?
I tried searching for it but couldn't find out
What is the best way to copy data from Redshift to Postgresql Database ?
using Talend job/any other tool/code ,etc
anyhow i want to transfer data from Redshift to PostgreSQL database
also,you can use any third party database tool if it has similar kind of functionality.
Also,as far as I know,we can do so using AWS Data Migration Service,but not sure our source db and destination db matches that criteria or not
Can anyone please suggest something better ?
The way I do it is with a Postgres Foreign Data Wrapper and dblink,
This way, the redshift table is available directly within Postgres.
Follow the instructions here to set it up https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/join-amazon-redshift-and-amazon-rds-postgresql-with-dblink/
The important part of that link is this code:
CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw;
CREATE EXTENSION dblink;
CREATE SERVER foreign_server
FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
OPTIONS (host '<amazon_redshift _ip>', port '<port>', dbname '<database_name>', sslmode 'require');
CREATE USER MAPPING FOR <rds_postgresql_username>
SERVER foreign_server
OPTIONS (user '<amazon_redshift_username>', password '<password>');
For my use case I then set up a postgres materialised view with indexes based upon that.
create materialized view if not exists your_new_view as
SELECT some,
columns,
etc
FROM dblink('foreign_server'::text, '
<the redshift sql>
'::text) t1(some bigint, columns bigint, etc character varying(50));
create unique index if not exists index1
on your_new_view (some);
create index if not exists index2
on your_new_view (columns);
Then on a regular basis I run (on postgres)
REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW your_new_view;
or
REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY your_new_view;
In the past, I managed to transfer data from one PostgreSQL database to another by doing a pg_dump and piping the output as an SQL command to the second instance.
Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL, so this method should work, too.
You can control whether pg_dump should include the DDL to create tables, or whether it should just load the data (--data-only).
See: PostgreSQL: Documentation: 8.0: pg_dump
I am migrating this Oracle command to PostgreSQL:
CREATE SYNONYM &user..emp FOR &schema..emp;
Please suggest to me how I can migrate the above command.
PostgreSQL does not support SYNOSYM or ALIAS. Synonym is a non SQL 2003 feature implemented by Microsoft SQL 2005 (I think). While it does provide an interesting abstraction, but due to lack of relational integrity, it can be considered a risk.
That is, you can create a synonym, advertise it to you programmers, the code is written around it, including stored procedures, then one day the backend of this synonym (or link or pointer) is changed/deleted/etc leading to a run time error. I don't even think a prepare would catch that.
It is the same trap as the symbolic links in unix and null pointers in C/C++.
But rather create a DB view and it is already updateable as long as it contains one table select only.
CREATE VIEW schema_name.synonym_name AS SELECT * FROM schema_name.table_name;
You don't need synonyms.
There are two approaches:
using the schema search path:
ALTER DATABASE xyz SET search_path = schema1, schema2, ...;
Put the schema that holds the table on the search_path of the database (or user), then it can be used without schema qualification.
using a view:
CREATE VIEW dest_schema.tab AS SELECT * FROM source_schema.tab;
The first approach is good if you have a lot of synonyms for objects in the same schema.
I've checked index type in one of my table and found that all indexes are of type REG (non clustered). As per DB2 documentation, DB2 by default use the first index created as clustered index if not explicitly specified. Why DB2 is showing all of my indexes as REGULAR?
Reference: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPEK_10.0.0/com.ibm.db2z10.doc.intro/src/tpc/db2z_clusteringindexes.dita
"When a table has a clustering index, an INSERT statement causes DB2 to insert the records as nearly as possible in the order of their index values. The first index that you define on the table serves implicitly as the clustering index unless you explicitly specify CLUSTER when you create or alter another index. For example, if you first define a unique index on the EMPNO column of the EMP table, DB2 inserts rows into the EMP table in the order of the employee identification number unless you explicitly define another index to be the clustering index"
Here is my understanding of your question - You read on the IBM documentation website that
DB2 by default use the first index created as clustered index if not explicitly specified
and your question is that you saw your DB2 9.7 LUW database and saw only REG indexes.
#mustaccio is correct. DB2 LUW never creates clustered indexes by default.
As per DB2 9.7 LUW documentation here, it says
clustering indexes cannot be specified as part of the table definition
used with the CREATE TABLE statement. Instead, clustering indexes are
only created by executing the CREATE INDEX statement with the CLUSTER
option specified. Then the ALTER TABLE statement should be used to add
a primary key that corresponds to the clustering index created to the
table. This clustering index will then be used as the table's primary
key index.
And #Ian Bjorhovde is also correct, you are reading DB2 for z/OS documentation. There are many differences between DB2 LUW and DB2 for z/OS