On 20 Jul 2012, at 22:30, David Johnston wrote: > Hi! > > Can someone please point me to a resource (or suggest a solution) that will > improve the performance of this query? I have some thoughts but figure I > should avoid reinventing the wheel since this seems like something that has > to have been solved already. > > I am working on a query where I have a list of identifiers (sample set has > about 8,500 records) and I have three other queries that return a subset of > these 8,500 identifiers > > Basic query is designed as such: > > WITH > full_set AS ( ) -- 8,500 records > , sub_1 AS () -- also about 8,500 > , sub_2 AS () -- maybe 5,000 > , sub_3 AS () - - maybe 3,000 > SELECT full_set.* > , COALESCE(sub_1.field, FALSE) > , COALESCE(sub_2.field, FALSE) > , COALESCE(sub_2.field, FALSE) > > FROM full_set > LEFT JOIN sub_1 > LEFT JOIN sub_2 > LEFT JOIN sub_3 > > The goal is to output a boolean for each record in “full_set” specifying > whether a corresponding records exists in the sub-set. If the record exists > “sub_x.field” is defined to be TRUE and thus is output otherwise sub_x.field > is NULL and coalesce returns FALSE.
You are creating a product of the result sets for sub_1 to _3 there, while you only seem to need the union of the three. Perhaps something like this is what you're after? WITH full_set AS ( ) , subs AS ( SELECT 1 AS sub, TRUE AS field, ... FROM sub_1 UNION ALL SELECT 2 AS sub, TRUE AS field, ... FROM sub_2 UNION ALL SELECT 3 AS sub, TRUE AS field, ... FROM sub_3 ) SELECT ... FROM full_set LEFT JOIN subs If you need those rows to be distinct, use UNION instead of UNION ALL, but the database needs to do more work for that. Alban Hertroys -- Screwing up is an excellent way to attach something to the ceiling. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
