On 10/31/2017 03:12 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
Rob Sargent wrote:
I think your biggest problem is the join condition
on m.basepos between s.startbase and s.endbase
That forces a nested loop join, which cannot be performed efficiently.
Agree! 800,000 * 4,000 = 3,200,000,000. It's just that
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 19:07 -0600, Rob Sargent wrote:
> -> Nested Loop (cost=3799.40..44686205.23 rows=1361304413 width=40)
> (actual time=55.443..89684.451 rows=75577302 loops=1)
> -> Hash Join (cost=3798.98..43611.56 rows=823591 width=32)
>
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe writes:
>> Also, to have PostgreSQL inline the function, which would be good
>> for performance, it should be declared IMMUTABLE.
>
> Actually, if you hope to have a SQL function be
On 10/26/2017 09:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Laurenz Albe writes:
Also, to have PostgreSQL inline the function, which would be good
for performance, it should be declared IMMUTABLE.
Actually, if you hope to have a SQL function be inlined, it's better
not to decorate it
On 10/26/2017 09:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Laurenz Albe writes:
Also, to have PostgreSQL inline the function, which would be good
for performance, it should be declared IMMUTABLE.
Actually, if you hope to have a SQL function be inlined, it's better
not to decorate it
Laurenz Albe writes:
> Also, to have PostgreSQL inline the function, which would be good
> for performance, it should be declared IMMUTABLE.
Actually, if you hope to have a SQL function be inlined, it's better
not to decorate it at all --- not with IMMUTABLE, and not
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> Rob Sargent wrote:
>> I have a query I cannot tame and I'm wondering if there's an alternative
>> to the "between" clause I'm using. Perhaps a custom type could do
>> better? I've tried the "<@" orperator
Rob Sargent wrote:
> I have a query I cannot tame and I'm wondering if there's an alternative
> to the "between" clause I'm using. Perhaps a custom type could do
> better? I've tried the "<@" orperator and that changes the query plan
> significantly but the execution cost/time is not
I have a query I cannot tame and I'm wondering if there's an alternative
to the "between" clause I'm using. Perhaps a custom type could do
better? I've tried the "<@" orperator and that changes the query plan
significantly but the execution cost/time is not improved.
Any suggestion or