Vitaly Belman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Notice that the GROUP BY items added the following to the plan:
> -> Sort (cost=10454.67..10600.83 rows=58466 width=47)
> Sort Key: s.series_id, s.series_name, s.series_picture
Oh, I see: in the first case you need no
Bruno:
It wasn't exactly my case but you did give me an idea by this tip,
changing a perspective did quite good to the timing of this query.
Tom:
Hmm.. I am not sure how I can demonstrate this to you... To see the
time differences you'd need the whole table.. That's quite a lot of
data to be pos
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:21:17 +0300,
Vitaly Belman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Consider the following query:
>
> select t1field1, avg(t2fieild2)
> from t1, t2
> where t1.field1 = t2.field2
> group by t1field1
>
> That works fine. But I'd really like to see more fields of t1 in this
> que
Vitaly Belman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that addind them all to GROUP BY causes a performance
> loss.
Really? I'd think that there'd be no visible loss if the earlier
fields of the GROUP BY are already unique. The sort comparison
should stop at the first field that determines
Hello,
Consider the following query:
select t1field1, avg(t2fieild2)
from t1, t2
where t1.field1 = t2.field2
group by t1field1
That works fine. But I'd really like to see more fields of t1 in this
query, however I can't add them into the select because they're not
part of the GROUP BY, thus I ha
