Vernon,
> The other way to build a query string is used on selection operation for
multiple table joined and/or involved. A query
> string is built dynmically due to whether or not any fields are examined.
The characteristic of the application is that
> among of many fields a user may only wa
16/01/2003 9:46:30 AM, "Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Vernon,
>
>> What I stated is my observation on my project with over twenty
>> multivalued detail tables. I have a selection query
>> contained 200 characters, involving 10 tables, and using subquery.
>> The performance is not bad a
Vernon,
> What I stated is my observation on my project with over twenty
> multivalued detail tables. I have a selection query
> contained 200 characters, involving 10 tables, and using subquery.
> The performance is not bad after properly indexing,
> least than 3 second (what the planner says).
Vernon,
> What I stated is my observation on my project with over twenty multivalued
detail tables. I have a selection query
> contained 200 characters, involving 10 tables, and using subquery. The
performance is not bad after properly indexing,
> least than 3 second (what the planner says).
Hi, Josh,
I appreciate you share your experience here. I definitely don't have that many years'
DBA experience behind, and are
learning to get DB design right at the first place.
What I stated is my observation on my project with over twenty multivalued detail
tables. I have a selection quer
Vernon,
> In regarding of recomposing multivalued field as a separated table,
I
> have observed some advantages and
> disadvantages of the approach. Good on search as you have pointed out
> and bad on updating data, two operations
> needed: deletion and insertion. A query may need to join a
Christopher Smith wrote:
>my mistakes, zips_max should be zips_300.
>and
>in my zip code table there are 120 million rows, example of the
records >are
>
>origin destination
>===
>
>90210 90222
>90210 90234
>90210 96753
1.try to create inde
my mistakes, zips_max should be zips_300.
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:> I have 4 tables that I need to query... 3 of the tables are links by the> field userid.>> below are table sql fragments. as well as the query. The subquery> causes very high>> CPU usages. It
Christopher Smith wrote:
I have 4 tables that I need to query... 3 of the tables are links by the
field userid.
below are table sql fragments. as well as the query. The subquery
causes very high
CPU usages. It typically returns ~3000 matches. Is there another way to
rewrite this?
SELECT user
I understand cachable functions but your proposed application is a little unclear.
is it possible to see an example?
thanks in advance.
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris,Here are probably your two main query problems:> strpos(user_match_details.ethnicity,'Asian') !=0 ANDIt is impossible
Chris,
Here are probably your two main query problems:
> strpos(user_match_details.ethnicity,'Asian') !=0 AND
It is impossible for Postgres to use an index for the above as it is written.
I would suggest one of two improvements;
1) Modify the schema so that multiple ethnicity details are kept
11 matches
Mail list logo
