I have a horribly-performing query similar to below, and I'd like to convert
it to use a "WITH mytable as ( ... ) " without having to re-architect my code.
For some reason, using a WITH prefix seems to generally work much faster than
IN() sub clause even allowing identical results. (runs in
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Benjamin Smith
wrote:
> I have a horribly-performing query similar to below, and I'd like to
> convert
> it to use a "WITH mytable as ( ... ) " without having to re-architect my
> code.
> For some reason, using a WITH prefix seems to
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Smith
wrote:
> I have a horribly-performing query similar to below, and I'd like to
> convert
> it to use a "WITH mytable as ( ... ) " without having to re-architect my
> code.
> For some reason, using a WITH prefix seems to
On 10/16/15 1:18 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
I have a horribly-performing query similar to below, and I'd like to convert
it to use a "WITH mytable as ( ... ) " without having to re-architect my code.
For some reason, using a WITH prefix seems to generally work much faster than
IN() sub clause