From: | Hunter Hillegas <lists(at)lastonepicked(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |
Date: | 2003-04-23 05:35:36 |
Message-ID: | BACB7438.A5CD5%lists@lastonepicked.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
So, what you're basically saying is that my best bet for improving the speed
of a query to get this result set is to tweak my settings and get faster
hardware?
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:30:05 -0400
> To: Hunter Hillegas <lists(at)lastonepicked(dot)com>
> Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo
> <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Left Join Not Using Index?
>
> Hunter Hillegas <lists(at)lastonepicked(dot)com> writes:
>> Can anyone point me in another direction to optimize this
>
> AFAICS you cannot improve that without changing the query structure
> and/or the database layout. Because the WHERE clause is a bunch of OR'd
> conditions, it's useless for restricting either individual table scan
> making up the join --- there is really no implementation short of
> forming the entire join described by the FROM ... JOIN ... ON ... part
> of the query and then testing each individual row against the WHERE
> clause. While that is the abstract semantic model implied by the SQL
> spec, it's not exactly how you want a query to really be done :-(.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2003-04-23 06:00:42 | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-23 05:30:05 | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |