Hey guys, thanks so much for all the help. I had never seen the HAVING
clause anywhere. That solved so many problems.
As for speed, I do not have indexing (most of my sql experience so far has
been on fairly 'small' tables, which I guess would be considered tiny for
everyone else).
test=# VACUU
On May 28, 2008, at 9:27 PM, edfialk wrote:
example rows from huge table (almost 900,000 rows):
fips, pollutant, value
That's not really huge in comparison with other pgsql databases.
There are terabyte installations out there ;)
SELECT small.fips, small.geom, small.name, SUM(huge.value)
edfialk wrote:
So, what I need is all kinds of things, but to start (pseudo-query):
SELECT small.fips, small.geom, small.name, SUM(huge.value) from small
JOIN huge on huge.fips = small.fips WHERE (SUM(huge.value)) > 500 AND
huge.pollutant='co';
wonder if that makes sense. Obviously, can't have
"edfialk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what I need is all kinds of things, but to start (pseudo-query):
>
> SELECT small.fips, small.geom, small.name, SUM(huge.value) from small
> JOIN huge on huge.fips = small.fips WHERE (SUM(huge.value)) > 500 AND
> huge.pollutant='co';
>
> wonder if that m
edfialk wrote:
> SELECT small.fips, small.geom, small.name, SUM(huge.value) from small
> JOIN huge on huge.fips = small.fips WHERE (SUM(huge.value)) > 500 AND
> huge.pollutant='co';
>
> wonder if that makes sense. Obviously, can't have an aggregate in
> where clause, so I've tried a couple WHERE
Hey everybody, I'm having an issue executing the query I want. I've
let a couple queries run a good 20 minutes and it still hasn't
finished. For my app, this is way too long to be useful, and I'm not
real sure what else I can do, let alone if my query is even what I
want.
So I'm really hoping th
