On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, come to think of it, just the implementation of re-querying a
> temporary table could alone significantly improve performance, because the
> temp table would:
> a) have fewer records to scan on the subselects
> b) not require any joins
Yeah,
/ Ashton Woods Homes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@;postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Stephan Szabo
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Postgresql Sql Group (E-mail)
> Subject
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, for the total deficiencies I am then splitting up the total into
> aging groups, eg <30, 30-60, 60-90, and >90 days old. The query for that
> looks like the below. But before I paste it in, I would like to optimize
> it, if I could do so wit
On Wednesday 06 Nov 2002 2:01 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, for the total deficiencies I am then splitting up the total into
> aging groups, eg <30, 30-60, 60-90, and >90 days old. The query for that
> looks like the below. But before I paste it in, I would like to optimize
> it, if I
No offence taken, however it is incorrect, my SQL is pretty good. I
received no other responses... And I later realized the solution to my
question:
(EXPERTS READ ON: If anyone can show me how to use a group by or otherwise
optimize I would be grateful)
This subquery:
SELECT pr
