On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 22:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean-Philippe_C=F4t=E9?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks a lot for this info, I was indeed exceeding the genetic
optimizer's threshold. Now that it is turned off, I get
a very stable response time of 435ms (more or less
Hi all,
Is PostgreSQL able to throw unnecessary joins?
For example I have two tables, and I join then with their primary keys, say type of bigint. In this case if I don't reference to one of the tablesanywhere except the join condition, thenthe join can be eliminated.
Or if I do a table1 left
Ottó Havasvölgyi wrote:
Hi all,
Is PostgreSQL able to throw unnecessary joins?
For example I have two tables, and I join then with their primary keys,
say type of bigint . In this case if I don't reference to one of the
tables anywhere except the join condition, then the join can be
Hi,
As far as I know SQL Server has some similar feature. It does not join
if not necessary, more exactly: if the result would be the same if it
joined the table.
Here is another example:
http://www.ianywhere.com/developer/product_manuals/sqlanywhere/0902/en/html/dbugen9/0468.htm
This would be
Porting app from 7.3 to 8.1, have hit a query that is slower. Everything
is analyzed / vacuumed appropriately. I've managed to pare the query
down into something manageable that still gives me a problem, it looks
like this:
SELECT
*
FROM
(
SELECT
software_download.*
Jamal Ghaffour a crit:
Hi,
I'm working on a project, whose implementation deals with PostgreSQL. A brief description of our application is given below.
I'm running version 8.0 on a dedicated server 1Gb of RAM.
my database isn't complex, it contains just 2 simple tables.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ott=F3_Havasv=F6lgyi?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I know SQL Server has some similar feature. It does not join
if not necessary, more exactly: if the result would be the same if it
joined the table.
I find it really really hard to believe that such cases arise often
Dear Tom,
Not sure about Otto's exact problem, but he did mention views, and I'd feel
more comfortable if you told me that view-based queries are re-planned based
on actual conditions etc. Are they?
Also, if you find it unlikely (or very rare) then it might be a configurable
parameter. If
Hi,
I think it would be sufficient only for views. In other cases the
programmer can optimize himself. But a view can be a join of other
tables, and it is not sure that all of them are always needed. It all
depends on what I select from the view.
This information could even be calculted at view
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:00, Ottó Havasvölgyi wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be sufficient only for views. In other cases the
programmer can optimize himself. But a view can be a join of other
tables, and it is not sure that all of them are always needed. It all
depends on what I select from
Jamal Ghaffour wrote:
CREATE TABLE cookies (
domain varchar(50) NOT NULL,
path varchar(50) NOT NULL,
name varchar(50) NOT NULL,
principalid varchar(50) NOT NULL,
host text NOT NULL,
value text NOT NULL,
secure bool NOT NULL,
timestamp timestamp with time zone NOT NULL
Hi,
If the join is to a primary key or notnull unique column(s), then
inner join is also ok. But of course left join is the simpler case.
An example:
create table person (id serial primary key, name varchar not null);
create table pet (id serial primary key, name varchar not null,
person_id int
Can I actully know whether a given plan is excuted with GEQO on ?
In other words, if I launch 'explain query', I'll get a given plan, but if I
re-launch
the query (withtout the 'explain' keyword), could I get a different
plan given that GEQO induces some randomness ?
Is it the plan that is
On 1/12/06, Jamal Ghaffour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jamal Ghaffour a écrit :
Hi,
I'm working on a project, whose implementation deals with PostgreSQL. A
brief description of our application is given below.
I'm running version
8.0 on a dedicated server 1Gb of RAM.
my database isn't complex,
14 matches
Mail list logo
