On 2015-12-17 16:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Mikkel Lauritsen writes:
The schema contains two tables, t1 and t2.
t2 has two fields, an id and a tag, and it contains 146 rows that are
unique.
t1 has two fields, a value and a foreign key referring to t2.id, and
it
contains 266177 rows.
The application
Also, sorry if I wasn't clear. Those two example queries above that
performed badly were not exact queries that I would use, they were just
simple examples that performed identically to something like this (or the
exists version of the same query):
SELECT cp.*
FROM contract_product cp
INNER JOIN c
No ORM, just me.
Was somewhat similar to something I had seen done at an old job, but they
used SQL Server and that type of query worked fine there.
There were a couple business cases that had to be satisfied, which is why I
went the way I did:
The first was "allow products to be grouped together,
also,
serializable_value is of type bytea
2015-12-17 16:12 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> have news,
> the pg version is 9.1.3
> a vaccum full, not a plain vaccum, was performed.
> o.s. is red hat 7
> filesystem: xfs with block size 4k
>
> could it be a problem regarding the
Adam Brusselback writes:
> The view I am having trouble with is able to push down it's where clause
> when the id's are directly specified like so:
> SELECT *
> FROM contract_product cp
> WHERE cp.contract_id = '16d6df05-d8a0-4ec9-ae39-f4d8e13da597'
> AND cp.product_id = '00c117d7-6451-4842-b17b-b
Hey all, first off, Postgres version 9.4.4 (also tested on 9.5 beta).
I have been having a pretty hard time getting a view of mine to play nice
with any other queries I need it for.
I have a few tables you'd need to know about to understand why i'm doing
what i'm doing.
First thing is we have a
Mikkel Lauritsen writes:
> The schema contains two tables, t1 and t2.
> t2 has two fields, an id and a tag, and it contains 146 rows that are
> unique.
> t1 has two fields, a value and a foreign key referring to t2.id, and it
> contains 266177 rows.
> The application retrieves the rows in t1 tha
have news,
the pg version is 9.1.3
a vaccum full, not a plain vaccum, was performed.
o.s. is red hat 7
filesystem: xfs with block size 4k
could it be a problem regarding the block size?
thanks
2015-12-15 12:11 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> Thanks Andreas,
> Il try
>
>
Adding foreign key between on t2 and t3, does not change the plan.
drop table if exists t1;
drop table if exists t2;
drop table if exists t3;
create table t1 as select generate_Series(1,20) as c1;
create table t2 as select generate_Series(1,20)%100+1 as c1;
create table t3 as select gener
Here, another issue with row estimate.
And, in this example, there is not correlation beetween columns in a same
table.
drop table if exists t1;
drop table if exists t2;
drop table if exists t3;
create table t1 as select generate_Series(1,20) as c1;
create table t2 as select generate_Series(1
Hi all,
I have an application that runs in production in multiple instances, and
on one of these the performance of certain queries suddenly became truly
abysmal. I basically know why, but I would much appreciate if I could
obtain a deeper understanding of the selectivity function involved and
Thank you both for the help!
happy holidays
2015-12-17 10:10 GMT+01:00 Mathieu VINCENT :
> thks Gunnar,
>
> I removed the correlation between t3.c1 and t3.c2 in this sql script :
>
> drop table if exists t1;
> drop table if exists t2;
> drop table if exists t3;
> drop table if exists t4;
>
> crea
thks Gunnar,
I removed the correlation between t3.c1 and t3.c2 in this sql script :
drop table if exists t1;
drop table if exists t2;
drop table if exists t3;
drop table if exists t4;
create table t1 as select generate_Series(1,30) as c1;
create table t2 as select generate_Series(1,400) as c
13 matches
Mail list logo
