Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 21:48 , Volkan YAZICI wrote:
AFAICS, the bottleneck in above query is ANY(ARRAY[]) clause usage.
Instead of that, if you replace «rights = ANY(ARRAY[2,5,10])» with
«rights IN (2,5,10)» it's overhead decreases to 0.200-0.300ms domain.
explain analyze
SELECT id
FROM (
SELECT id, sum(1) AS s
FROM urights
WHERE uright in (2,5,10)
GROUP BY id) AS t
WHERE s = 3;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Subquery Scan t (cost=1.14..1.19 rows=2 width=4) (actual
time=0.106..0.108 rows=1 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=1.14..1.17 rows=2 width=4) (actual
time=0.103..0.105 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: (sum(1) = 3)
-> Seq Scan on urights (cost=0.00..1.10 rows=4 width=4)
(actual time=0.029..0.038 rows=5 loops=1)
Filter: ((uright = 2) OR (uright = 5) OR (uright = 10))
Total runtime: 0.386 ms
(6 rows)
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
why not use an having clause in the GROUP BY?
HTH
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
