Message-ID: <5064BEA6.3000506@optionshouse.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:01:26 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: "M. D." <lists@turnkey.bz>, Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>,
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hardware advice
References: <5064A4DC.5090304@turnkey.bz>
	<CAFwQ8rf4Cnt9Ksd+3GbkkWtZ3NM+hYukd1gKRLmsihXnKzVteA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5064BB1E.4090904@turnkey.bz>
	<CAOR=d=02nGu3fMppkVZWeiDYOpWrXi1PT2ZSxx-fZ+Uxp2WuOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOR=d=02nGu3fMppkVZWeiDYOpWrXi1PT2ZSxx-fZ+Uxp2WuOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 09/27/2012 03:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> Have you tried re-writing this query first?  Is there a reason to have
> a bunch of subselects instead of joining the tables?  What pg version
> are you running btw?  A newer version of pg might help too.

Wow, yeah. I was just about to say something about that. I even pasted 
it into a notepad and started cutting it apart, but I wasn't sure about 
enough of the column sources in all those subqueries.

It looks like it'd be a very, very good candidate for a window function 
or two, and maybe a few CASE statements. But I'm about 80% certain it's 
not very efficient as is.

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email