Re: optimizing a (simple?) query on a largeish table
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: optimizing a (simple?) query on a largeish table |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 12440.1195447194@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | optimizing a (simple?) query on a largeish table ("Dr. Kurt Ruff" <kurt.ruff@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-novice |
"Dr. Kurt Ruff" <kurt.ruff@gmail.com> writes:
> I've got the following query which I'm trying to run on a 4.2 million row table:
> SELECT ActionItems.*
> FROM ActionItems
> WHERE
> attn=upper(SESSION_USER)
> or attn in (
> select upper(groname)
> from pg_group
> where (select oid from pg_roles where rolname = SESSION_USER) = ANY(grolist)
> )
> ORDER BY dateTimeCreated
Replacing the OR with a UNION or UNION ALL might help, though I also
wonder whether you've selected a compatible datatype for "attn".
The upper() calls will yield type TEXT.
[ fools around a bit... ] Another possibility, if you're using PG 8.2
or later, is to replace the "attn IN (sub-SELECT)" with "attn = ANY
(ARRAY(sub-SELECT))". This is a hack --- the planner probably ought to
think of that for itself --- but currently it doesn't.
All this advice is predicated on the assumption that there are few
enough matching rows that multiple indexscans really are a better plan
than one seqscan. Since you didn't say how many rows you expect, it's
not impossible that the plan you've got is in fact the best.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: