Added -general list so that the next followup can remove -hackers and everyone there will have had notice.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Dann Corbit wrote: > > I have a query using two postgres tables. > One is called "CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB" and the other is called > "CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB". > > I am getting 3 times slower performance than Microsoft Access when > performing a left outer join. > > ... > > Here is the query: > select a."RT_REC_KEY", a."cnxarraycolumn", a."CRC" from > "CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB" a left outer join > "CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB" b on ( a."RT_REC_KEY" = b."RT_REC_KEY" > and a."cnxarraycolumn" = b."cnxarraycolumn") where b.oid is null ; > > > Creating the following index had no effect on performance! > create unique index i1 on "CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB" ("RT_REC_KEY", > "cnxarraycolumn", "CRC"); > > Both tables had 6139062 rows of data. > > In this query ... all rows of data match perfectly, so no results are > returned. I suspect you get no results because it's unlikely b.oid will be null. Are you sure the query is how it should be since you seem to be expecting no rows to be returned and yet your reason for that doesn't match the query as shown. Without the oid test I'd bet you get a result set of 6139062 rows. > Is there a way to reformulate this query so that it will use the index? Given the above comment I'd say no since the entirety of both tables will be tested to make the result set. Alternatively, if the query is right try something along the lines of: SELECT a.blah, a.foo, FROM a, b WHERE a.blah = b.blah AND a.foo = b.foo AND b.oid IS NULL if that doesn't use a query try pushing the null test into a subselect like: SELECT a.blah, a.foo, FROM a, (SELECT * FROM b WHERE oid IS NULL) b WHERE a.blah = b.blah AND a.foo = b.foo After that let's hope I haven't embarrassed myself. -- Nigel J. Andrews ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster