From: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
To: brendan.curran@gmail.com
Cc: AgentM <agentm@themactionfaction.com>
Cc: Pg Performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Scrub one large table against another (vmstat output)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:55:35 +0200
Message-ID: <452DE6E7.6050808@logix-tt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <452D28EE.6000105@gmail.com>
References: <452C1437.9040709@gmail.com>
<63AAE7DF-0D71-4BE7-A62C-B08E7E3C35CE@themactionfaction.com>
<452C252C.2030408@gmail.com>
<C03C1953-A8D1-48E8-B5EE-AAD9FA473D60@themactionfaction.com>
<452C3A54.7000908@gmail.com>
<ACA00F4F-8AD1-4F04-9C24-47F615DB0DC3@themactionfaction.com>
<452D28EE.6000105@gmail.com>
Hi, Brendan,
Brendan Curran wrote:
>> What prevents you from using an aggregate function?
>
> I guess I could actually obtain the results in an aggregate function and
> use those to maintain a summary table. There is a web view that requires
> 'as accurate as possible' numbers to be queried per group (all 40 groups
> are displayed on the same page) and so constant aggregates over the
> entire table would be a nightmare.
That sounds just like a case for GROUP BY and a materialized view.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org
www.nosoftwarepatents.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: schabi@logix-tt.com, brendan.curran@gmail.com, agentm@themactionfaction.com
Subject: Re: Scrub one large table against another (vmstat output)
In-Reply-To: <452DE6E7.6050808@logix-tt.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox