| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Randall Skelton <skelton(at)brutus(dot)uwaterloo(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sub-query too slow |
| Date: | 2004-04-01 00:14:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20040401001420.GA23073@svana.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Randall Skelton wrote:
> Can someone please explain how I can make this sub-query faster? In
> the case below, 'test' is a temporary table but I have tried with test
> being a full, indexed, and 'vacuum analysed' table and it still takes
> more than 130 seconds. Note that 'test' has very few rows but
> 'cal_quat_1' has many rows.
Have you tried just using a join? Like:
explain analyze select value from cal_quat_1, test where timestamp = t
order by t;
Also, an index on cal_quat_1.timestamp might be good too...
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> This space intentionally left blank
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Randall Skelton | 2004-04-01 00:58:15 | Re: Sub-query too slow |
| Previous Message | Trilobite Trilobite | 2004-04-01 00:11:18 | SQL trees and other nonsense... |