ly fewer 2s? I understand that random() is not
truly random, and that the seed affects this value. But it still
confuses me that, no matter how many times I run this, there are always
so few 2s. If it is generating an independent random number in the
second call to random(), then I don't
Hello.
Thanks for the help.
Tom Lane wrote:
Jessi Berkelhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Here are the 3 EXPLAIN ANALYZE commands followed by the output:
Well, here's the problem:
Join Filter: (clinical_reg_current.client_id = client.client_id)
->
Filter: ((NOT is_deleted) AND
(clinical_reg_date <= ('now'::text)::date) AND ((clinical_reg_date_end
>= ('now'::text)::date) OR (clinical_reg_date_end IS NULL)) AND
((kc_authorization_status_code)::text <> ALL (('{CX,TM}'::character
vary
on the slow query:
Aggregate (cost=8969.16..8969.17 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=709703.985..709703.987 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=755.61..8968.29 rows=346 width=0)
(actual time=147.667..709700.553 rows=684 loops=1)
Does anybody have ideas why this is so slow?
Tha
