From: | Masaru Sugawara <rk73(at)sea(dot)plala(dot)or(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Ian Harding" <ianh(at)tpchd(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fw: views |
Date: | 2002-04-17 13:53:51 |
Message-ID: | 20020417225100.75E9.RK73@sea.plala.or.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:58:32 -0700
"Ian Harding" <ianh(at)tpchd(dot)org> wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry.
That reply was too early. I was not going to post it until I had confirmed
that that query and your original were equivalent. I should have paid
more attention to dealing with my mailer.
> Indeed! Thank you very much. I came to the conclusion that i had to simplify my query rather than try to figure out why PostgreSQL was not planning better to mask my ignorance.
Could you deliberately compare with the returns of both queries and
make sure there is no difference between them if you use it ?
In addition, you may need to tune some parameters in the postgresql.conf.
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?runtime-config.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-OPTIMIZER
> I am sorry I did not post back to the group in general that I had resolved my issue.
>
> Ian
>
Regards,
Masaru Sugawara
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dima Tkach | 2002-04-17 14:06:54 | Re: Large table update/vacuum PLEASE HELP! |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-17 13:36:32 | Re: Date precision problem |