From: | Randall Skelton <skelton(at)brutus(dot)uwaterloo(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sub-query too slow |
Date: | 2004-04-01 00:58:15 |
Message-ID: | A88948A6-8377-11D8-A5A5-000393C92230@brutus.uwaterloo.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks, that is much better.
On 31 Mar 2004, at 19:14, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> 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...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anthony_Barker | 2004-04-01 01:00:52 | Whats missing from postgresql |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2004-04-01 00:14:20 | Re: Sub-query too slow |