Re: Dealing with complex queries

From: Jeff Eckermann <jeff_eckermann(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dealing with complex queries
Date: 2003-02-04 19:07:36
Message-ID: 20030204190736.85888.qmail@web20802.mail.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Try creating an index on the substrings: you will need
to wrap the substring in a function marked "immutable"
(or "with (iscachable)" for versions prior to 7.3) for
the index to be of any use.
I have done a lot of the sort of thing you describe,
with good results using that method.

--- Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 16:32:10 -0500,
> > Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Any hints suggestions on dealing with complex
> queries.
> >
> > > substring(ppl.carried_as from 1 for 3)
> > > = substring(jc.last from 1 for
> 3) and
> >
> > Joining on substrings is a good sign that your
> design needs rethinking.
>
> The tables in the substring comparison are some of
> our tables compared
> to tables supplied by another company. It is a fact
> that the names don't
> always match and have variations.
>
> The whole excersise is to match by names to then
> populate our table with
> their keys so in the future we can match by keys in
> feeds we receive from
> them.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2003-02-04 19:11:20 not exactly a bug report, but surprising behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-04 18:26:15 Re: 7.2.1: coalesce double-calls function?