On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Dror Matalon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:07:00PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
Dror Matalon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually what finally sovled the problem is repeating the
dtstamp last_viewed
in the sub select
That will at least convince the
Greg Stark writes:
Call it a wishlist bug. The problem is it would be a hard feature to
implement properly. And none of the people paid to work on postgres
by various companies seem to have this on their to-do lists. So
don't expect it in the near future.
We are using Postgres heavily, and we
Dror,
Ouch. I just double checked and you're right. Is this considered a bug,
or just an implementation issue?
It's an implementation issue, which may be fixed by 7.5 but not sooner.
Basically, the free ability of PostgreSQL users to define their own
aggregates limits our ability to define
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 10:32:32AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Dror,
Ouch. I just double checked and you're right. Is this considered a bug,
or just an implementation issue?
It's an implementation issue, which may be fixed by 7.5 but not sooner.
Basically, the free ability of PostgreSQL
Dror Matalon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually what finally sovled the problem is repeating the
dtstamp last_viewed
in the sub select
That will at least convince the optimizer to use an index range lookup. But it
still will have to scan every record that matches channel==$1, link==$2, and
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:07:00PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
Dror Matalon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually what finally sovled the problem is repeating the
dtstamp last_viewed
in the sub select
That will at least convince the optimizer to use an index range lookup. But it
still
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 17:44:46 -0700,
Dror Matalon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is doing order by limit 1 faster than doing max()? Seems like the
optimizer will need to sort or scan the data set either way. That part
didn't actually make a difference in my specific case.
max() will never
Dror Matalon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ouch. I just double checked and you're right. Is this considered a bug,
or just an implementation issue?
Call it a wishlist bug. The problem is it would be a hard feature to implement
properly. And none of the people paid to work on postgres by various
Say, what do people think about a comment board thing like php.net has
attached to the documentation. People can add comments that show up directly
on the bottom of the documentation for each function. I find it's mostly full
of junk but skimming the comments often turns up one or two relevant
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:53, Dror Matalon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:44:49PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It is too bad the (channel, link) index doesn't have dtstamp at the end
of it, otherwise the below query would be a gain (might be a small
Actually what finally sovled the problem is repeating the
dtstamp last_viewed
in the sub select
select articlenumber, channel, description, title, link, dtstamp from items i1,
my_channels where ((i1.channel = '2' and
my_channels.id = '2' and owner = 'drormata' and (dtstamp
Dror,
select articlenumber, channel, description, title, link, dtstamp from
items, my_channels where items.channel = '2' and my_channels.id =
'2' and owner = 'drormata' and dtstamp last_viewed and
articlenumber not in (select item from viewed_items where channel
Hi Josh,
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:07:10PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Dror,
select articlenumber, channel, description, title, link, dtstamp from
items, my_channels where items.channel = '2' and my_channels.id =
'2' and owner = 'drormata' and dtstamp last_viewed and
Dror,
I am using 7.4, and had tried NOT EXISTS and didn't see any
improvements.
It wouldn't if you're using 7.4, which has improved IN performance immensely.
What happens if you stop using a function and instead use a subselect?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
item_max_date() looks like this:
select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
It is too bad the (channel, link) index doesn't have dtstamp at the end
of it, otherwise the below query would be a gain (might be a small one
anyway).
select dtstamp
from items
where
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:44:49PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
item_max_date() looks like this:
select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
It is too bad the (channel, link) index doesn't have dtstamp at the end
of it, otherwise the below query would be a gain (might
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:35:46PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Dror,
I am using 7.4, and had tried NOT EXISTS and didn't see any
improvements.
It wouldn't if you're using 7.4, which has improved IN performance immensely.
What happens if you stop using a function and instead use a
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:10:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:53, Dror Matalon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:44:49PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
item_max_date() looks like this:
select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
It is too
I hope it isn't the first or second one ;)
CREATE or REPLACE FUNCTION item_max_date (int4, varchar) RETURNS
timestamptz AS '
select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
' LANGUAGE 'sql';
How about the below?
CREATE or REPLACE FUNCTION item_max_date (int4, varchar)
19 matches
Mail list logo
