Hello.
It's second query rewrite postgresql seems not to handle - making EXCEPT
from NOT IT.
Here is an example:
Preparation:
drop table if exists t1;
drop table if exists t2;
create temporary table t1(id) as
select
(random()*10)::int from generate_series(1,20) a(id);
create temporary ta
Something weird with your example which doesn't have the same result, see
row count with explain analyze:
cruz=# SELECT version();
version
-
Віталій Тимчишин escribió:
> So the question is: I am willing to participate in postgresql development
> because it may be easier to fix planner then to rewrite all my queries :).
> How can I? (I mean to work on query planner enhancements by providing new
> options of query rewrite, not to work on
2008/11/19 Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [ISO-8859-5] Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
>
> > Query 1:
> > select * from t1 where id not in (select id from t2);
> >
> > Query 2 (gives same result as Q1):
> > select * from t1 except all (select id from t2);
>
> It gives the same
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [ISO-8859-5] ??? wrote:
> Query 1:
> select * from t1 where id not in (select id from t2);
>
> Query 2 (gives same result as Q1):
> select * from t1 except all (select id from t2);
It gives the same result as long as no nulls are in either table. If
either table
2008/11/19 DANIEL CRISTIAN CRUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Something weird with your example which doesn't have the same result, see
> row count with explain analyze:
>
My fault. EXCEPT ALL would not work here, so this method with EXCEPT can be
used only when either operation is done on unique key on t
Hi,
I have defined sequence on a table something like this
CREATE SEQUENCE items_unqid_seq
INCREMENT 1
MINVALUE 0
MAXVALUE 9223372036854775807
START 7659
CACHE 1;
this is on a table called items. where i have currently the max(unq_id) as
7659.
and in the stored procedure when i am in
Kranti (tm),
If you problem is very urgent, I suggest that you get a paid support
contract with a PostgreSQL support company. You can find a list of
support companies here:
http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support
These mailing lists are made up of other PostgreSQL users and
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Kranti™ K K Parisa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have defined sequence on a table something like this
>
>
> CREATE SEQUENCE items_unqid_seq
> INCREMENT 1
> MINVALUE 0
> MAXVALUE 9223372036854775807
> START 7659
> CACHE 1;
>
> this is on a table c
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Kranti� K K Parisa
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have defined sequence on a table something like this
>>
>>
>> CREATE SEQUENCE items_unqid_seq
>> INCREMENT 1
>> MINVALUE 0
>> MAXVALUE 9223372036854775807
>> START 7659
>> CACHE 1;
>>
>> thi
Query below seems to use indexes everywhere in most optimal way.
dokumnr column is of type int
Speed of this query varies rapidly:
In live db fastest response I have got is 8 seconds.
Re-running same query after 10 seconds may take 60 seconds.
Re-running it again after 10 seconds may take 114 s
Query below seems to use indexes everywhere in most optimal way.
dokumnr column is of type int
Speed of this query varies rapidly:
In live db fastest response I have got is 8 seconds.
Re-running same query after 10 seconds may take 60 seconds.
Re-running it again after 10 seconds may take 114
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
Cross-posting two PostgreSQL mailing lists for a problem which is very urgent
to you, but not to us, is a guarenteed way not to get a useful answer.
Posting to the performance list like this, with a question that in no way
whatsoever has anything to do
13 matches
Mail list logo
