From: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pallav Kalva <pkalva(at)livedatagroup(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimize SQL |
Date: | 2006-09-15 16:22:55 |
Message-ID: | 450AD35F.3070305@tweakers.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 15-9-2006 17:53 Tom Lane wrote:
> If that WHERE logic is actually what you need, then getting this query
> to run quickly seems pretty hopeless. The database must form the full
> outer join result: it cannot discard any listing0_ rows, even if they
> have lastupdate outside the given range, because they might join to
> addressval2_ rows within the given createdate range. And conversely
> it can't discard any addressval2_ rows early. Is there any chance
> that you wanted AND not OR there?
Couldn't it also help to do something like this?
SELECT ..., (SELECT MAX(createdate) FROM addressval ...)
FROM listing l
LEFT JOIN address ...
WHERE l.id IN (SELECT id FROM listing WHERE lastupdate ...
UNION
SELECT id FROM listing JOIN addressval a ON ... WHERE
a.createdate ...)
Its not pretty, but looking at the explain only a small amount of
records match both clauses. So this should allow the use of indexes for
both the createdate-clause and the lastupdate-clause.
Best regards,
Arjen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bucky Jordan | 2006-09-15 18:28:02 | Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-15 16:17:44 | Re: Why the difference in plans ?? |