From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimize query for listing un-read messages |
Date: | 2014-05-03 09:51:08 |
Message-ID: | ED3627D0-976A-4496-8BA7-E1B46E131EA1@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 01 May 2014, at 13:06, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> wrote:
> I have the following query to list all un-read messages for person with id=1:
>
> SELECT
> m.id AS message_id,
> prop.person_id,
> coalesce(prop.is_read, FALSE) AS is_read,
> m.subject
> FROM message m
> LEFT OUTER JOIN message_property prop ON prop.message_id = m.id AND prop.person_id = 1
> WHERE 1 = 1
> AND NOT EXISTS(SELECT
> *
> FROM message_property pr
> WHERE pr.message_id = m.id AND pr.person_id = prop.person_id AND prop.is_read = TRUE)
> ;
Since most messages will have prop.is_read = TRUE, that part of the query suffers from low selectivity. Querying for the opposite is probably much faster, which you may even be able to speed up more with a partial index on is_read = FALSE.
> Does anyone have suggestions on how to optimize the query or schema? It's important that any message not having an entry in message_property for a user is considered un-read.
Do you really need to query message_property twice? I would think this would give the same results:
SELECT
m.id AS message_id,
prop.person_id,
coalesce(prop.is_read, FALSE) AS is_read,
m.subject
FROM message m
LEFT OUTER JOIN message_property prop ON prop.message_id = m.id AND prop.person_id = 1 AND prop.is_read = FALSE
;
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2014-05-03 10:45:51 | Re: Optimize query for listing un-read messages |
Previous Message | Tim van der Linden | 2014-05-02 22:26:34 | Re: Full text: Ispell dictionary |