Re: Forcing filter/join order?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Forcing filter/join order?
Date: 2004-02-19 05:08:19
Message-ID: 28948.1077167299@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Knowing that events are never more than one month long for this
> application, I can do:

> "WHERE event.event_date >= (begin_date - '1 month) AND event.event_date <=
> end_date"

> ... which works because I have a child table which has event information by
> day:

Uh, why do you need the child table? Seems like the correct incantation
given an assumption about maximum duration is

event_date <= 'end-date' AND (event_date + duration) >= 'start-date'
AND event_date >= 'start-date' - 'max-duration'

The last clause is redundant with the one involving the duration field,
but it provides a lower bound for the index scan on event_date. The
only index you really need here is one on event_date, but possibly one
on (event_date, (event_date + duration)) would be marginally faster.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Saleem Burhani Baloch 2004-02-19 09:01:20 Re: Slow response of PostgreSQL
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-02-19 04:56:47 Re: Tables on multiple disk drives