I would use 2 left joins and use the where condition to make sure one
of them is true, such as:
select big_table.* from
big_table left join little_table as l1 on big_table.y1=l1.y and
l1.x=10
left join little_table as l2 on big_table.y2=l2.y and l1.x=10
where l1.p_key is not null and l2.p_key is not null
I have never tried this in postgresql, but in my experience with
various other DB engines it is a lot faster then using an or in the
join and faster then a union.
Thank You
Sim Zacks
IT Manager
CompuLab
04-829-0145 - Office
04-832-5251 - Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello. I have a query like:
SELECT big_table.*
FROM little_table, big_table
WHERE little_table.x = 10 AND
little_table.y IN (big_table.y1, big_table.y2);
I have indexes on both big_table.y1 and big_table.y2 and on
little_table.x and little_table.y. The result is a sequential scan of
big_table. In order to prevent this, I've rewritten the query as:
SELECT big_table.*
FROM little_table, big_table
WHERE little_table.x = 10 AND
little_table.y = big_table.y1
UNION
SELECT big_table.*
FROM little_table, big_table
WHERE little_table.x = 10 AND
little_table.y = big_table.y2
which does allow an index scan, but suffers from two separate queries
along with a unique sort, which, from the data, represents 90% of the
tuples returned by both queries.
Is there any way to write the first query such that indexes will be used?
Mike Mascari
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
