Tom Lane wrote:
Martin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The one not using sub-queries under EXPLAIN ANALYZE proves itself to be
less efficient and have a far higher cost then those with the penalty of
a sub-query. Since this seems to be counter to what I have been told
in the past, I thought
Martin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one not using sub-queries under EXPLAIN ANALYZE proves itself to be
> less efficient and have a far higher cost then those with the penalty of
> a sub-query. Since this seems to be counter to what I have been told
> in the past, I thought I would
I thought this could generate some interesting discussion. Essentially,
there are three queries below, two using sub-queries to change the way
the randomized information (works first by author and then by work) and
the original which simply randomizes out of all works available.
The one not us
