| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | Troels Arvin <troels(at)arvin(dot)dk>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Quota query with decent performance? |
| Date: | 2003-11-12 05:17:58 |
| Message-ID: | 5855.1068614278@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Second, the query you post is one "SQL Standard" way, which is good for
> portability but not for speed. Frankly, I'm not convinced that it's even the
> best SQL standard way. On the other databases, you seem happy to use
> non-SQL-standard syntax, so let me give you one such solution in PostgreSQL:
> [snip]
I don't know of any very good solution in bog-standard SQL either.
Aside from the LIMIT-based solution that Josh offered, I recall that
Oleg Bartunov and Teodor Sigaev had some ideas about top-N-aggregate
solutions. We didn't accept those into the main distribution (yet)
but if you dig in the PG list archives I think there is working code
available. Try searching for "partial sorting".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Troels Arvin | 2003-11-12 09:32:30 | Re: Quota query with decent performance? |
| Previous Message | Chester Kustarz | 2003-11-11 23:49:31 | Re: Quota query with decent performance? |