.filpgt = vencodpgt.filpgt) AND (ven.codpgt =
vencodpgt.codpgt))
Total runtime: 1317306.468 ms
(43 rows)
Reimer
> -Mensagem original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nome de Tom Lane
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2007 23:13
> Para: [EMA
"Carlos H. Reimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, I believe the best choice to improve the performance of this
> particular SQL statement is adding the 'set join_collapse_limit = 1;' just
> before the join statement, correct?
That's a mighty blunt instrument. The real problem with yo
rmance@postgresql.org
> Assunto: RES: RES: [PERFORM] Improving select peformance
>
>
> Yes, but as the change did not alter the response time I used the original
> view.
>
> Anyway here are the response times using the changed view (without the
> concatena
x27;::bpchar)
-> Seq Scan on tt_pla vencodpgt (cost=0.00..2.18 rows=18 width=24)
(actual time=0.002..0.017 rows=18 loops=256)
Total runtime: 9546.971 ms
(46 rows)
> -Mensagem original-
> De: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 1 de ag
Carlos H. Reimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have changed the view to eliminate the bizarre concatenation conditions
> but even so the response time did not change.
Are you sure you did that? In the EXPLAIN it's still possible to see
them, for example
>-> Nested Loop (cost=1.34..3409.0
, but can this solution be considered or the problem is in
another place?
Thank you in advance!
Reimer
> -Mensagem original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nome de Tom Lane
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 19 de julho de 2007 22:31
> Para: [EMAIL PROTEC
"Carlos H. Reimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of our end users was complaining about a report that was taking too much
> time to execute and I´ve discovered that the following SQL statement was the
> responsible for it.
Here's part of the problem:
>Join Filter:
Hi,
One of our end users was complaining about a report that was taking too much
time to execute and I´ve discovered that the following SQL statement was the
responsible for it.
I would appreciate any suggestions to improve performance of it.
Thank you very much in advance!
