Richard Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to port our application from MS-SQL to Postgres. We have
> implemented all of our rather complicated application security in the
> database. The query that follows takes a half of a second or less on
> MS-SQL server and around 5 seconds on Postgres.
The EXPLAIN shows that most of the time is going into repeated
executions of svp_getparentproviderids() in the first UNION arm:
> -> Seq Scan on da_answer a
> (cost=0.00..63928.75 rows=10540 width=24) (actual time=279.080..4418.808
> rows=161 loops=1)
> Filter: ((date_effective <=
> 9999999999::double precision) AND (inactive <> 1) AND (subplan))
> SubPlan
> -> Function Scan on
> svp_getparentproviderids (cost=0.00..15.00 rows=5 width=4) (actual
> time=0.203..0.203 rows=0 loops=21089)
> Filter:
> (svp_getparentproviderids = $1)
I'd suggest replacing the EXISTS coding by IN:
(EXISTS (SELECT * FROM svp_getparentproviderids(1) WHERE
svp_getparentproviderids = a.provider_id))
to
(a.provider_id IN (SELECT * FROM svp_getparentproviderids(1)))
The latter form is likely to be significantly faster in PG 7.4.
It's also possible that the speed loss compared to MSSQL is really
inside the svp_getparentproviderids function; you should look into
that rather than assuming this query per se is at fault.
Also, do you actually need UNION as opposed to UNION ALL? The
duplicate-elimination behavior of UNION is a bit expensive if not
needed. It looks from the EXPLAIN output that some of the unions
aren't actually eliminating any rows.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
