On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 17:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The results certainly ought to be the same (although perhaps not with
> the same ordering) --- if they aren't, please provide a reproducible
> test case.

The results are the same, this is not a problem.

> As for efficiency, though, 8.1 didn't understand how to use hash
> aggregation for DISTINCT.  Less-obsolete versions do know how to do
> that.

Indeed, this seem to be the issue:

tts_server_db=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE select userdata from tagrecord where 
clientRmaInId = 'CPC-RMA-00110' group by userdata;
                                                                   QUERY PLAN   
                                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 HashAggregate  (cost=253.34..253.50 rows=16 width=15) (actual 
time=0.094..0.094 rows=0 loops=1)
   ->  Index Scan using idx_tagdata_clientrmainid on tagrecord  
(cost=0.00..252.85 rows=195 width=15) (actual time=0.091..0.091 rows=0 loops=1)
         Index Cond: ((clientrmainid)::text = 'CPC-RMA-00110'::text)
 Total runtime: 0.146 ms
(4 rows)

tts_server_db=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE select distinct userdata from tagrecord where 
clientRmaInId = 'CPC-RMA-00110';
                                                                      QUERY 
PLAN                                                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Unique  (cost=260.27..261.25 rows=16 width=15) (actual time=0.115..0.115 
rows=0 loops=1)
   ->  Sort  (cost=260.27..260.76 rows=195 width=15) (actual time=0.113..0.113 
rows=0 loops=1)
         Sort Key: userdata
         ->  Index Scan using idx_tagdata_clientrmainid on tagrecord  
(cost=0.00..252.85 rows=195 width=15) (actual time=0.105..0.105 rows=0 loops=1)
               Index Cond: ((clientrmainid)::text = 'CPC-RMA-00110'::text)
 Total runtime: 0.151 ms
(6 rows)

For now we are stuck with 8.1, so the easiest fix for us is to use GROUP BY.
Since this is fixed in later versions, I guess there's not much to see here... 
:)

Thanks for the quick reply!

-- 
Dimi Paun <d...@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

Reply via email to