Re: Help with tuning this query (more musings)

From: "Ken Egervari" <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com>
To: "Ken Egervari" <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Help with tuning this query (more musings)
Date: 2005-03-03 02:51:55
Message-ID: 001001c51f9b$f606cd40$6a01a8c0@KEN
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-performance

>I took John's advice and tried to work with sub-selects. I tried this
>variation, which actually seems like it would make a difference
>conceptually since it drives on the person table quickly. But to my
>surprise, the query runs at about 375 milliseconds. I think it's because
>it's going over that shipment table multiple times, which is where the
>results are coming from.

I also made a version that runs over shipment a single time, but it's
exactly 250 milliseconds. I guess the planner does the exact same thing.

select s.*, ss.*

from shipment s
inner join shipment_status ss on s.current_status_id=ss.id
inner join release_code rc on ss.release_code_id=rc.id
left outer join driver d on s.driver_id=d.id
left outer join carrier_code cc on s.carrier_code_id=cc.id
where s.carrier_code_id in (
select cc.id
from person p
inner join carrier_to_person ctp on p.id=ctp.person_id
inner join carrier c on ctp.carrier_id=c.id
inner join carrier_code cc on cc.carrier_id = c.id
where p.id = 355
)
and s.current_status_id is not null
and s.is_purged=false
and(rc.number='9' )
and(ss.date>=current_date-31 )

order by ss.date desc

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ken Egervari 2005-03-03 02:52:39 Re: Help with tuning this query (Some musings)
Previous Message Ken Egervari 2005-03-03 01:20:33 Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally)

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ken Egervari 2005-03-03 02:52:39 Re: Help with tuning this query (Some musings)
Previous Message Ken Egervari 2005-03-03 01:20:33 Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally)