| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Mamin <M(dot)Mamin(at)intershop(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Very specialised query |
| Date: | 2009-03-31 11:54:44 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0903311246450.21772@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Marc Mamin wrote:
> Are your objects limited to some smaller ranges of your whole interval ?
> If yes you may possibly reduce the ranges to search for while using an additional table with the min(start) max(end) of each
> object...
No, they aren't. However, even if they were, that would not actually speed
up the query at all. We are already looking up in the index by objectid,
and that would be an equivalent constraint to limiting by the available
range of start/end values.
I'm currently arguing with plpgsql over this problem, but it looks like
it will run reasonably fast.
Matthew
--
If you're thinking "Oh no, this lecturer thinks Turing Machines are a feasible
method of computation, where's the door?", then you are in luck. There are
some there, there, and by the side there. Oxygen masks will not drop from the
ceiling... -- Computer Science Lecturer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2009-03-31 12:20:41 | Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-03-30 21:44:50 | Re: Trying to track down weird query stalls |