Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-30 Thread Jack Coates
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 23:23, Dennis Bjorklund wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > Probably better to repost it as a gzip'd attachment. That should > > > > complete with a picture of the GUI version. 26k zipped, let's see if > > this makes it through. > > Are you sure you at

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Getting rid of the group by would not give that kind of speedup? No. Getting rid of the per-row subqueries (or at least finding a way to make 'em a lot cheaper) is the only way to make any meaningful change. regards, tom lane

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-30 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > yup -- here it is. It will probably be a nasty mess after linewrap gets > > done with it, > > yup, sure is :-( If I was familiar with the layout I could probably > decipher where the line breaks are supposed to b

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-30 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jack Coates wrote: > > Probably better to repost it as a gzip'd attachment. That should > > complete with a picture of the GUI version. 26k zipped, let's see if > this makes it through. Are you sure you attached it? At least when it got here there was no attachment. -- /

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-30 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > jackdb-# GROUP BY memberid_ HAVING ( > > Um, that's not what I had in mind at all. Does GROUP BY actually do > anything at all here? (You didn't answer me as to whether memberid_ > is a unique identifier or not, but if it is, this GROUP BY is just an >

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Jack Coates
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:01, Tom Lane wrote: > Probably better to repost it as a gzip'd attachment. That should > protect the formatting and get it into the list archives. > > regards, tom lane complete with a picture of the GUI version. 26k zipped, let's see if this makes

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > yup -- here it is. It will probably be a nasty mess after linewrap gets > done with it, yup, sure is :-( If I was familiar with the layout I could probably decipher where the line breaks are supposed to be, but right now I'm just confused. > so let me kn

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Jack Coates
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 11:31, Tom Lane wrote: > Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > jackdb=# explain SELECT DISTINCT members_.memberid_ > > jackdb-# FROM members_ > > jackdb-# WHERE ( members_.List_='list1' > > jackdb(# AND members_.MemberType_='normal' > > jackdb(# AND members_.SubType_

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > jackdb=# explain SELECT DISTINCT members_.memberid_ > jackdb-# FROM members_ > jackdb-# WHERE ( members_.List_='list1' > jackdb(# AND members_.MemberType_='normal' > jackdb(# AND members_.SubType_='mail' > jackdb(# AND members_.emailaddr_ IS NOT NULL )

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Jack Coates
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 10:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That completed in 3.5 minutes on MS-SQL. I killed the query this morning > > after 15 hours on PostgreSQL 7.4. I tried a GROUP BY memberid_ HAVING > > variation, which completed in 59 seconds on MS-SQL. I kil

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That completed in 3.5 minutes on MS-SQL. I killed the query this morning > after 15 hours on PostgreSQL 7.4. I tried a GROUP BY memberid_ HAVING > variation, which completed in 59 seconds on MS-SQL. I killed it after 35 > minutes on PostgreSQL. Hm. I'd li

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-29 Thread Jack Coates
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:04, Tom Lane wrote: > Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've got a query that needs some help, please. Is there a way to avoid > > all the looping? I've got freedom to work with the double-indented > > sections below ) AND (, but the initial select distinct wrappe

Re: [PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-28 Thread Tom Lane
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've got a query that needs some help, please. Is there a way to avoid > all the looping? I've got freedom to work with the double-indented > sections below ) AND (, but the initial select distinct wrapper is much > more difficult to change. This is auto-ge

[PERFORM] query optimization question

2004-01-28 Thread Jack Coates
Hi all, I've got a query that needs some help, please. Is there a way to avoid all the looping? I've got freedom to work with the double-indented sections below ) AND (, but the initial select distinct wrapper is much more difficult to change. This is auto-generated code. explain analyze SELECT D