Cheers for you help guys. Having filtered and then joined has substantially
reduced the run time.
Much obliged,
Sebastian
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> > Could it have something
> > to do with
Cheers for this Richard. The more I think about it, I believe the join is
being made against ALL issues and followups first and then filtered by my
where clause conditions afterwards. This would in incur a scan against all
15,000 issues and 95,000 followups. Set theory tells me that I should not
us
in the INNER query a
> bit more if you use a restriction clause like "WHERE n_issue = i.id" in
> that. It will certainly lower the number of rows returned by it to only 1
> result.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Helio Campos Mello de Andrade
>
>
>
> On Mon
Hi all,
I was hoping to receive some advise on a slow running query in our business'
Issue Tracking System. To shed some light on the below mentioned queries,
here is a brief summary of how users interact with the system. The two main
components in the system are a Issues and Followups. An Issue i
Hi all,
I have a question regarding functions. How can I return zero rows from a
function whose return type is a table row? I did the following test and it
did not work as expected:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
fn_get_user (integer) RETURNS usertable AS '
DECLARE
in_userid A
(cities.id = x.city_id)
I think that would work.
Seb
On 8/28/07, Sebastian Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
> You can do something like :
>
> SELECT * FROM cities c LEFT OUTER JOIN events e ON (c.id =e.city_id) ORDER
> BY e.date DESC LIMIT 2
>
&g
Thanks guys,
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Bart Degryse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Im using Django as my Object relational Mapper so im pretty sure I
> can not add a constraint such as ...
> Then you should seriously consider changing your mapper.
>
> >>> "Seba
Hi,
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> > Thanks for the information.
> >
> > Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the foreign key relation
> to
> > clients
be
overlap between client_ids and service_ids.
Cheers,
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a fairly basic question about database design where im not
&g
terms of
searching speed that is.
Kindest regards.
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> > > The update/message format is exactly the same for both. Should I make
> tw
Hello,
>
> I have a fairly basic question about database design where im not sure
> which approach is considered correct.
>
> I have two different entities: Clients and Services. Both allow users to
> add progressive updates about the two entities.
>
> The update/message format is exactly the same
11 matches
Mail list logo
