Re: Problem query

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: CS DBA <cs_dba(at)consistentstate(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problem query
Date: 2011-06-02 01:31:18
Message-ID: BANLkTimqGojJPep+Qhgd6KC9w5UOHQ_w-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:28 PM, CS DBA <cs_dba(at)consistentstate(dot)com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 03:38 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> CS DBA<cs_dba(at)consistentstate(dot)com>  wrote:
>>
>>> The app wants to run a query like this:
>>>
>>> select count(pri_num) from max_xtrv_st_t
>>> where pri_num in (select max(pri_num) from max_xtrv_st_t where 1=1
>>>                                 group by tds_cx_ind, cxs_ind_2)
>>
>> Why not something simpler?  There are a number of possibilities, and
>> I don't claim this one is necessarily best (or even error free), but
>> how about something like?:
>>
>> select count(*) from
>>   (select distinct max(pri_num)
>>   from max_xtrv_st_t
>>   group by tds_cx_ind, cxs_ind_2) x
>>
>> -Kevin
>
> I've tried a number of alternates, each one wants to do a seq scan of the
> table (including your suggestion above).

why wouldn't you expect a sequential scan? what is the number of
unique values for tds_cx_ind, cxs_ind_2 on the table?

one of the most important techniques with query optimization is to put
yourself in the place of the database and try to imagine how *you*
would pass over the records...then try and coerce the database into
that plan.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2011-06-02 01:33:32 Re: CLUSTER versus a dedicated table
Previous Message mark 2011-06-02 01:18:09 Re: CLUSTER versus a dedicated table