On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 at 10:45 Tom Lane wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter writes:
> Assuming you have a reasonably late-model PG, you could rewrite the
> view with a lateral function call:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW covering_works_r AS
> SELECT
> w.idA
Hi all,
I have a recursive part in my database logic that I want to isolate and
reuse as a view. I had found a blog that explained how move a function
parameter into a view. The SQL is in attachment.
When I write a query based on that view with a fixed value (or values) for
the (input) parameter,
Hi all,
I'm migrating a web application to an ORM framework (Doctrine) so I need a
new way to get statistics about entities into the application without
importing all data, only the results (e.g. load total number of children
instead of loading all children into the application and counting it
aft
Hi all,
I've been trying to apply pg_tgrm for the search-function of my
application. The database fits a few times in the available RAM, and is
mostly read-only.
Plans, schema and configs in attachment. Postgresql version 9.1.4 on Debian.
When just searching in one table, it behaves perfectly her
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
> > you can always do this:
>
> > create index performance_creation_date_desc_idx on
> > performance(creation_date desc nulls last);
>
> > which will index optimize your sql. Interesting that 'null last'
> > fools disall
Hi all,
Running PostgreSQL 8.4.7 (backport package from Debian Lenny).
I have some queries that are based on views, and an engine adds a few
clauses (like NULLS LAST). One of these queries has a performance problem.
The simplified form is this:
shs=# explain analyze select * from performance e
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 13:56, Mathieu De Zutter wrote:
>> I have no idea why in some cases the index scan is not considered.
>> Does anyone have an idea?
>
> I guess that it's because the currval() function is vola
Hi all,
I have a table that stores all the page loads in my web application:
shs-dev=# \d log_event
Table "public.log_event"
Column | Type |
Modifiers
-+--+-
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Ozer, Pam wrote:
> I have the following query running on 8.4, which takes 3516 ms. It is very
> straight forward. It brings back 116412 records. The explain only takes
> 1348ms
> "Sort (cost=104491.48..105656.24 rows=116476 width=41) (actual
> time=1288.413..1
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> > seq_page_cost = 0.1
> > random_page_cost = 0.1
>
> These might not even be low enough. The reason why bitmap index scans
> win over plain index scans, in general, is because you m
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter wrote:
>
> You didn't include any information on your hardware and OS, which can
> be very important. Also, what version of PostgreSQL is this?
> SELECT version(); output would be good.
>
Int
Hi,
Part of a larger problem, I'm trying to optimize a rather simple query which
is basically:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE indexed_column > ... ORDER BY indexed_column DESC;
(see attachment for all details: table definition, query, query plans)
For small ranges it will choose an index scan which i
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brad Jorsch" writes:
>> But if I add a constant-valued column to indicate which branch of the
>> union each result came from:
>
>> explain analyze select * from baz join (
>> select id, val, 'foo'::text as source from foo
>> union all
>> s
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Apart from avoiding views or subselects when sorting afterwards and
> > putting the whole bunch in a huge SQL statement (which i'll have to
> > produce o
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:59:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, i dont want the view to be presorted, but sort it in the
> > queries that use the view. When I do that, the index I have on that
> > field seems to be i
Hi,
After my first mail, I found a better testcase (well it's a about the
same, but you have a better look to compare).
See attachment prob-query.sql
The ORDER BY in the FROM clause uses the index.
The last ORDER BY does not use the index.
They should be the same...
The query plans are identica
Hi,
I'm having a performance problem in postgresql.
I have a rather complex view (attached) which, on itself, executes very
fast, as it should. Normally this view is unordered. When I order the
view itself (see comments in attachment), the view executes with about
the same speed since the field i
17 matches
Mail list logo
