| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Roman Fail" <rfail(at)posportal(dot)com>, sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |
| Date: | 2003-01-16 17:52:47 |
| Message-ID: | web-2316240@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom,
> The list of explicit JOINs as you have here is a good way to proceed
> *if* you write the JOINs in an appropriate order for implementation.
> I believe the problem with Roman's original query was that he listed
> the JOINs in a bad order. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of that
> message, and the list archives seem to be a day or more behind...
> but at least for these WHERE conditions, it looks like the best bet
> would to join m to b (I'm assuming m.merchid is unique), then to t,
> then to d, then add on the others.
I realize that I've contributed nothing other than bug reports to the
parser design. But shouldn't Postgres, given a free hand, figure out
the above automatically? I'd be embarassed if MS could one-up us in
parser planning anywhere, theirs sucks on sub-selects ....
-Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-16 18:40:32 | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-01-16 17:47:02 | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |