From: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Slow query: Select all buildings that have >1 pharmacies and >1 schools within 1000m |
Date: | 2012-08-09 11:00:18 |
Message-ID: | CAFcOn2-fYtZZn0bCiB5F9oF9H43fFvUqYLbZ4TyAPvr_X4nF5A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi
2012/8/8 Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi Craig
>>
>> Clever proposal!
>> I slightly tried to adapt it to the hstore involved.
>> Now I'm having a weird problem that PG says that "relation 'p' does not exist".
>> Why does PG recognize table b in the subquery but not table p?
>> Any ideas?
>
> I don't think it does recognize b, either. It just fell over on p
> before it had a chance to fall over on b.
No, the b get's recognized. See my original query.
That's a strange behaviour of the SQL parser which I can't understand.
> I think you have to use WITH if you want to reference the same
> subquery in multiple FROMs.
I'll try that with CTE too.
> Another approach would be to add explicit conditions for there being
> at least 1 school and 1 pharmacy within distance. There can't be >1
> unless there is >=1, but the join possibilities for >=1 (i.e. "where
> exists" rather than "where (select count(*)...)>1" ) are much more
> attractive than the ones for >1.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
You mean, first doing a select on existence and then apply the count
condition later?
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-08-09 16:17:20 | Re: Slow query: Select all buildings that have >1 pharmacies and >1 schools within 1000m |
Previous Message | Ondrej Ivanič | 2012-08-09 00:18:10 | Re: Postgresql - performance of using array in big database |