Hi, all. I've done some further analysis, found a form that works if I split
things over two separate queries (B1 and B2, below) but still trouble when
combining (B, below).
This is the full pseudo-query: SELECT FROM A UNION SELECT FROM B ORDER BY
dateTime DESC LIMIT 50
In that pseudo-query:
Merlin Moncure-2 wrote:
>
>
> 8.3? try converting the above to WHERE EXISTS or (even better) a JOIN...
>
>
Thanks for that. But in my Mar 03, 2011; 10:19am post I already broke it
down to the barebones with some variations, among which JOIN. The EXISTS IN
variation was so poor that I left th
Hi. Thanks for your response.
Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Join Filter: ((events_events.transactionid)::text =
> (customerdetails.transactionid)::text)
>
> Now why is there a cast to text there on both sides? Do those two
> columns have exactly the same datatype? If not, you probably want to
> fix
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:12 PM, sverhagen wrote:
> Thanks for your help already!
> Hope you're up for some more :-)
>
>
> Andy Colson wrote:
>>
>> First off, excellent detail.
>>
>> Second, your explain analyze was hard to read... but since you are not
>> really interested in your posted query, I
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
>> explain analyze SELECT events_events.* FROM events_events
>> JOIN events_eventdetails customerDetails
>> ON events_events.transactionid = customerDetails.transactionid
>> AND customerDetails.keyname='customer_id'
>> AND sub
On 3/3/2011 3:19 AM, sverhagen wrote:
Andy Colson wrote:
For your query, I think a join would be the best bet, can we see its
explain analyze?
Here is a few variations:
SELECT events_events.* FROM events_events WHERE transactionid IN (
SELECT transactionid FROM events_eventdetail
Andy Colson wrote:
>
> For your query, I think a join would be the best bet, can we see its
> explain analyze?
>
Here is a few variations:
SELECT events_events.* FROM events_events WHERE transactionid IN (
SELECT transactionid FROM events_eventdetails customerDetails
WHERE cu
On 03/02/2011 06:12 PM, sverhagen wrote:
Thanks for your help already!
Hope you're up for some more :-)
Andy Colson wrote:
First off, excellent detail.
Second, your explain analyze was hard to read... but since you are not
really interested in your posted query, I wont worry about looking at
Thanks for your help already!
Hope you're up for some more :-)
Andy Colson wrote:
>
> First off, excellent detail.
>
> Second, your explain analyze was hard to read... but since you are not
> really interested in your posted query, I wont worry about looking at
> it... but... have you seen:
>
On 03/01/2011 06:14 PM, sverhagen wrote:
Hi, appreciated mailing list. Thanks already for taking your time for my
performance question. Regards, Sander.
===POSTGRESQL VERSION AND ORIGIN===
PostgreSQL 8.3.9 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.2.4
(Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)
Installed u
Hi, appreciated mailing list. Thanks already for taking your time for my
performance question. Regards, Sander.
===POSTGRESQL VERSION AND ORIGIN===
PostgreSQL 8.3.9 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.2.4
(Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)
Installed using "apt-get install postgresql-8.3"
===
11 matches
Mail list logo
