I never heard back but was hoping for some feedback/discussion about this 2nd
problem/patch.
just a reminder - Thanks
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:05:38AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:02:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Justin Pryzby writes:
> > > diff --git a/src/backen
Am 15. Juni 2017 16:53:44 MESZ schrieb "l...@laurent-hasson.com"
:
>Hello all,
>
>I have a query with many joins, something like:
>
>Select c1, c2, c3, sum(c5)
> From V1
> Join V2 on ...
> Left join V3 on ...
> Left join T4 on ...
> Join T5 on ...
> Join T6 on ...
"l...@laurent-hasson.com" writes:
> I have a query with many joins, something like:
> Select c1, c2, c3, sum(c5)
> From V1
>Join V2 on ...
>Left join V3 on ...
>Left join T4 on ...
>Join T5 on ...
>Join T6 on ...
>Left join T7 on ...
>Join
Hello all,
I have a query with many joins, something like:
Select c1, c2, c3, sum(c5)
From V1
Join V2 on ...
Left join V3 on ...
Left join T4 on ...
Join T5 on ...
Join T6 on ...
Left join T7 on ...
Join T8 on ...
Left join T9 on ...
Where
Greetings,
* Lutz Fischer (l.fisc...@ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> Data in [sp] are never changed. I can probably reduce the size by
> changing datatypes from numeric to float but I was wondering if it
> would be more efficient - primarily in terms of storage - to change
> the structure to have two arrays i
Hi,
I have two tables
s {
id bigint NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
...
}
sp {
id bigint PRIMARY KEY,
sid bigint REFERENCES s (id),
i numeric,
m numeric
...
}
I have for each entry in [s] on average around 120 entries in [sp]. And
that table has become the largest table in my
