"Travis Whitton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One last question, using the "weather report" example, is it going to
> improve performance for the DISTINCT ON query to add an index to the
> location and time columns?
A two-column index matching the ORDER BY that you use might help,
or then again m
One last question, using the "weather report" example, is it going to
improve performance for the DISTINCT ON query to add an index to the
location and time columns?
Thanks a lot,
Travis
On 3/16/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Travis Whitton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the fo
"Travis Whitton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the following test table, I want to grab only the newest record and
> disregard any older duplicates based on name. Is this the most efficient way
> to do it?
No, it's gonna be pretty awful. The best way I know of involves
DISTINCT ON (see the
Given the following test table, I want to grab only the newest record and
disregard any older duplicates based on name. Is this the most efficient way
to do it? Will the indicies even make a difference? The table below
demonstrates a simple proof of concept. My final table will have millions of
re
