On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ Please don't re-quote the entire damn thread in each followup. Have
> some respect for your readers' time, and assume that they have already
> seen the previous traffic, or could go look it up if they haven't.
> The point of quoting at all is j
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Jake Nielsen
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jake Nielsen
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM
&
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jake Nielsen
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
>
>> *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM
>>
>>
>> the query
>>
>> SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
> *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM
>
>
> the query
>
> SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN
> ('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4f13!-acec!-a9556362f0ad&q
Herp, forgot to include the query:
SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN
('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4f13!-acec!-a9556362f0ad"') AND conflicted != 1 AND
userId = '57dc984f1c87461c0967e228' ORDER BY ID LIMIT 4000;^
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:02
I've got a query that takes a surprisingly long time to run, and I'm having
a really rough time trying to figure it out.
Before I get started, here are the specifics of the situation:
Here is the table that I'm working with (apologies for spammy indices, I've
been throwing shit at the wall)
