| From: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | brendan(dot)curran(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, Pg Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scrub one large table against another (vmstat output) |
| Date: | 2006-10-12 06:55:35 |
| Message-ID: | 452DE6E7.6050808@logix-tt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi, Brendan,
Brendan Curran wrote:
>> What prevents you from using an aggregate function?
>
> I guess I could actually obtain the results in an aggregate function and
> use those to maintain a summary table. There is a web view that requires
> 'as accurate as possible' numbers to be queried per group (all 40 groups
> are displayed on the same page) and so constant aggregates over the
> entire table would be a nightmare.
That sounds just like a case for GROUP BY and a materialized view.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org
www.nosoftwarepatents.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | H.J. Sanders | 2006-10-12 07:32:51 | FW: Simple join optimized badly? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-11 20:52:52 | Re: Scrub one large table against another |