Have you tried
AND (sn.notafiscalnumero, sn.notafiscalserie, sn.cliente) NOT IN (
SELECT numero, serie, codigo FROM r_contrato WHERE savfonte = 'lg')
or
and not exists(select true from r_contrato where savfonte = 'lg' and numero =
sn.notafiscalnumero and serie = sn.notafiscalserie and codigo = s
Hi all,
the following
query is working well without the AND on WHERE clause, so I need suggestions
about how could I rewrite the query to get the same result with less cost of
time and resources.
I’ve already created indexes on all foreign key
columns.
Thanks in advance.
Da
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> | Could we see EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE output for each case?
> [snip]
> See above.
Okay, so the issue here is choosing between a nestloop or a hash join
that have very nearly equal estimated costs:
> ~ -> Hash Join (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
| Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|>Using a prepared query:
|
|
|>Without index and default stat 10 :1.12 ms
ariadne=# explain analyze execute test_ariadne;
~
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am going to assume that one of the sc.cpfcnpj's above is really rc.cpfcnpj
> since that corresponds to the explain below.
No, actually the explain plan corresponds to the sc.cpfcnpj = sc.cpfcnpj
condition. I didn't twig to the typo until I started t
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 13:25:30 -0300,
Danilo Mota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And the following tables:
> TABLES
>
> --
> == r_cliente: 75816 records
>
"Danilo Mota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT
> rc.pkcliente
> FROM r_cliente AS rc
> INNER JOIN sav_cliente_lg AS sc ON sc.cpfcnpj = sc.cpfcnpj;
Surely you meant
INNER JOIN sav_cliente_lg AS sc ON rc.cpfcnpj = sc.cpfcnpj;
I would also venture that your statistics are desperately out of d
HI All,
I have a big performance issue concerning a PostgreSQL
database.
I have the following server configuration:
Pentium 4 2.4 GHz
1 GB RAM
36 GB SCSI
And the following tables:
TABLES
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Using a prepared query:
> Without index and default stat 10 :1.12 ms
> Without index and default stat 1000 : 1.25 ms
> With index and default stat 10:1.35 ms
> With index and default stat 1000: 1.6 ms
Could we see EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXE
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 05:37, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
|>>> Without index: 1.140 ms
|>>> With index: 1.400 ms
|>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>> Can I just check that 1.
Hi all,
I offered apologies to Igor Artimenko in private mail already; I'll apologize again
here.
About top-posting: Outlook Exchange teaches bad habits. Can you set Outlook Exchange
to prefix lines with "> " only when mail is in text-only format but not when mail
arrives in html / rtf format?
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:54:47 +0200, "Leeuw van der, Tim"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You asked the very same question yesterday, and I believe you got some useful
>answers. Why do you post the question again?
Tim, no need to be rude here. We see this effect from time to time when
a new user send
Hi,
I'm migrating data from 7.4.2 to 8.0.0beta1 and the
process is slow (10 15 tuples per second)
Can be a type conversion issue?
RedS
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 05:37, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> |>>> Without index: 1.140 ms
> |>>> With index: 1.400 ms
> |>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>
> |>> Can I just che
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
|>>> Without index: 1.140 ms
|>>> With index: 1.400 ms
|>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>> Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the
|>> thousands separator)?
15 matches
Mail list logo
