On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Kynn Jones wrote:
This is just GREAT!!! It fits the problem to a tee.
It makes the queries quick then?
It is good that you ask. Clearly you know the story: a brilliant-sounding
optimization that in
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Kynn Jones wrote:
Hi. I'm trying to optimize...
(Q1) SELECT a1.word, a2.word
FROM T a1 JOIN T a2 USING ( zipk )
WHERE a1.type = int1
AND a2.type = int2;
Okay, try this:
Create an index on T(type, zipk), and then CLUSTER on that index. That
So, this email is directed much more towards Postgres Powers That Be. I
came across this problem a while ago, and I haven't checked whether it has
been improved.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, I wrote:
Hi. I'm trying to optimize...
(Q1) SELECT a1.word, a2.word
FROM T a1 JOIN T a2 USING (
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Kynn Jones wrote:
Hi. I'm trying to optimize...
(Q1) SELECT a1.word, a2.word
FROM T a1 JOIN T a2 USING ( zipk )
WHERE a1.type = int1
AND a2.type = int2;
Okay, try this:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Kynn Jones wrote:
This is just GREAT!!! It fits the problem to a tee.
It makes the queries quick then?
Matthew
--
The only secure computer is one that's unplugged, locked in a safe,
and buried 20 feet under the ground in a secret location...and i'm not
even too sure
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-02-22 12:49, Kynn Jones wrote:
Of course, I expect that using views Vint1 and Vint2... would
result in a loss in performance relative to a version that used bona
fide tables Tint1 and Tint2.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-02-22 12:49, Kynn Jones wrote:
Of course, I expect that using views Vint1 and Vint2... would
result in a loss in performance relative to a version that used bona
fide tables Tint1 and Tint2.
On 2008-02-23 05:59, Kynn Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Since you have experience working with views, let me ask you this.
The converse strategy to the one I described originally would
On 2008-02-23 07:08, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
...
SELECT word1, word1
FROM S JOIN txt ON word = word1
WHERE type1 = int1 AND type2 = int2;
...
Oops that should be:
SELECT word1, word2
FROM S JOIN txt ON word = word1
WHERE type1 = int1 AND type2 = int2;
--
Mail to my
Hi, Dean. The system I'm working with is very similar in spirit to a
large multilingual dictionary covering 100 languages. Using this analogy,
the type column would correspond to the language, and the zipk column
would correspond to some language-independent key associated with a concept
On 2008-02-23 08:21, Kynn Jones wrote:
...
3. Why not write:
CREATE VIEW txt AS
SELECT a1.word AS word1, a1.type AS type1, a2.word AS word2,
a2.type AS type2
FROM T a1 [LEFT] JOIN T a2 USING( zipk ); -- Use LEFT if
appropriate
SELECT word1, word1
FROM S
On 2008-02-23 08:49, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Why 10,000 views??? What's wrong with the ONE view above? You DON'T
want to be defining VIEWs based on actual tables VALUES; leave that
to the SELECT. For that matter, what's wrong with the final SELECT I
listed (below)?
SELECT
Hi. I'm trying to optimize the performance of a database whose main purpose
is to support two (rather similar) kinds of queries. The first kind, which
is expected to be the most common (I estimate it will account for about 90%
of all the queries performed on this DB), has the following general
On 2008-02-22 12:49, Kynn Jones wrote:
Of course, I expect that using views Vint1 and Vint2... would
result in a loss in performance relative to a version that used bona
fide tables Tint1 and Tint2. My question is, how can I minimize
this performance loss?
That used to be my thoughts too,
14 matches
Mail list logo
