From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Kumar, Mukesh" <MKumar(at)peabodyenergy(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bhupendra Babu <bbabu12(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michel SALAIS <msalais(at)msym(dot)fr>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, MUKESH KUMAR <mukesh(dot)kumar14(at)tcs(dot)com>, "heda(dot)giriraj(at)tcs(dot)com" <heda(dot)giriraj(at)tcs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Query Tunning related to function |
Date: | 2022-04-17 16:47:51 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYuRptm3SrSomOFgbA8gvgyHc_g8MEGmEjV_gJoMitccA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 8:53 AM Kumar, Mukesh <MKumar(at)peabodyenergy(dot)com>
wrote:
> We request you to please provide some assistance on below issue and it is
> impacting the migration project.
>
I suggest you try and re-write the loop-based function into a set-oriented
view.
Specifically, I think doing: "array_agg(DISTINCT paymenttype)" and then
checking for various array results will be considerably more efficient.
Or do a combination: write the set-oriented query in an SQL function. You
should not need pl/pgsql for this and avoiding it should improve
performance.
David J.
p.s., The convention on these lists is to inline post and remove unneeded
context. Or at least bottom post.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benjamin Tingle | 2022-04-17 17:07:50 | Re: Query Planner not taking advantage of HASH PARTITION |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-17 16:09:09 | Re: Query Planner not taking advantage of HASH PARTITION |