From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bad execution plan for subselects containing windowing-function |
Date: | 2010-01-14 17:42:05 |
Message-ID: | 25915.1263490925@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I see no bug here. Your second query asks for a much more complicated
>> computation, it's not surprising it takes longer.
> But sorry, I disagree. It is the same query with the same result. I can't see
> how the queries should return different results.
In the first query
select id, avg(value) over (partition by value) from values where id = 50 order by id;
the avg() calculations are being done over only rows with id = 50. In
the second query
select * from (select id, avg(value) over (partition by value) from values order by id) foo where id = 50;
they are being done over all rows. In this particular example you
happen to get the same result, but that's just because "avg(foo) over
partition by foo" is a dumb example --- it will necessarily just yield
identically foo. In more realistic computations the results would be
different.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-01-14 18:01:50 | Re: Slow "Select count(*) ..." query on table with 60 Mio. rows |
Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2010-01-14 17:30:25 | Re: bad execution plan for subselects containing windowing-function |