Hi Guys,
Next level of query is following:
If this works, I guess 90% of the problem will be solved.
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT TARGET_ID)
FROM
S_V_F_PROMOTION_HISTORY_EMAIL PH
INNER JOIN S_V_D_CAMPAIGN_HIERARCHY CH
EXPLAIN ANALYZE didn't give result even after three hours.
-Original Message-
From: Vivekanand Joshi [mailto:vjo...@zetainteractive.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:11 PM
To: 'Jim Nasby'; 'Tomas Vondra'; 'Scott Marlowe'; 'Varadharajan Mukundan'
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'
S
Hi,
On 17.3.2015 08:41, Vivekanand Joshi wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Next level of query is following:
>
> If this works, I guess 90% of the problem will be solved.
>
> SELECT
> COUNT(DISTINCT TARGET_ID)
> FROM
> S_V_F_PROMOTION_HISTORY_EMAIL PH
On 17.3.2015 12:07, Vivekanand Joshi wrote:
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE didn't give result even after three hours.
In that case the only thing you can do is 'slice' the query into smaller
parts (representing subtrees of the plan), and analyze those first. Look
for misestimates (significant differences betwe
Hi Tomas,
This is what I am getting,
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM s_f_promotion_history WHERE (send_dt >=
'2014-03-13 00:00:00');
QUERY
PLAN
-
Attaching explain analyze file as well.
Vivek
-Original Message-
From: Vivekanand Joshi [mailto:vjo...@zetainteractive.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:36 PM
To: 'Tomas Vondra'; 'Jim Nasby'; 'Scott Marlowe'; 'Varadharajan Mukundan'
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'
Subject: RE:
Just as I feared, the attached explain analyze results show significant
misestimates, like this for example:
Nested Loop (cost=32782.19..34504.16 rows=1 width=16)
(actual time=337.484..884.438 rows=46454 loops=1)
Nested Loop (cost=18484.94..20366.29 rows=1 width=776)
(actual time=
Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 14:55:
> (2) using window functions, e.g. like this:
>
> SELECT * FROM (
>SELECT *,
> ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY touchpoint_execution_id
>ORDER BY FROM max_creation_dt) AS rn
>FROM s_f_touc
On 17.3.2015 15:19, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 14:55:
>> (2) using window functions, e.g. like this:
>>
>> SELECT * FROM (
>>SELECT *,
>> ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY touchpoint_execution_id
>>ORDER BY
The confusion for me here is that :
I am getting results from the view in around 3 seconds
(S_V_D_CAMPAIGN_HIERARCHY) and 25 seconds (S_V_F_PROMOTION_HISTORY_EMAIL)
But when I am using these two views in the query as the joining tables, it
doesn't give any result. As per my understanding, the p
This is the explain for a simple query:
explain Select * from S_V_F_PROMOTION_HISTORY_EMAIL a inner join
S_V_D_CAMPAIGN_HIERARCHY b on a.touchpoint_execution_id =
b.touchpoint_execution_id;
http://explain.depesz.com/s/gse
I am wondering the total cost here is less even then the result is not
co
On 17.3.2015 16:10, Vivekanand Joshi wrote:
> The confusion for me here is that :
>
>
> I am getting results from the view in around 3 seconds
> (S_V_D_CAMPAIGN_HIERARCHY) and 25 seconds (S_V_F_PROMOTION_HISTORY_EMAIL)
>
> But when I am using these two views in the query as the joining
> tables
Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 15:43:
> On 17.3.2015 15:19, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 14:55:
>>> (2) using window functions, e.g. like this:
>>>
>>> SELECT * FROM (
>>>SELECT *,
>>> ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY touchpoint_exe
On 17.3.2015 16:24, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 15:43:
>> On 17.3.2015 15:19, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>>> Tomas Vondra schrieb am 17.03.2015 um 14:55:
(2) using window functions, e.g. like this:
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT *,
14 matches
Mail list logo
