| 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 |