On Tuesday 13 February 2007 14:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Chuck D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is still using that sequence scan on the view after the APPEND for the
> > us_city and world_city table. Any reason why the view won't use the
> > indexes when it is JOINed to another table but it w
"Chuck D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is still using that sequence scan on the view after the APPEND for the
> us_city and world_city table. Any reason why the view won't use the indexes
> when it is JOINed to another table but it will when the view is queried
> without a JOIN? I should
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 13:16, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> use 'union all' instead of union. union without all has an implied
> sort and duplicate removal step that has to be resolved, materializing
> the view, before you can join to it.
>
Thanks for that Merlin, I forgot about using ALL. That
On 2/13/07, Chuck D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
I don't know if this is an SQL or PERFORMANCE list problem but I wanted to
check here first. I've seen this discussed on the list before but I'm still
not sure of the solution. Maybe my query is just structured wrong.
I recently visite
