X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512798BA26C for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:40:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08726-01 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:40:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from vms046.mailsrvcs.net (unknown [206.46.252.46]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1388BA1DD for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:40:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jfradkin ([66.15.127.235]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IC4000YLEJIXT80@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:40:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:44:18 -0500 From: "Joel Fradkin" Subject: Re: Comments on subquery performance In-reply-to: To: "'T- Bone'" , Cc: Message-id: <000001c515e9$db144870$797ba8c0@jfradkin> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.188 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, MSGID_DOLLARS X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200502/211 X-Sequence-Number: 20322 Yea we examined it here as a group as we are facing the same kind of = stuff and found exactly the same thing. It does what MSSQL called a Cartesian join, and ran no faster other then removing the outer join logic. Using a regular join statement and only inner joins was the same speed = and I think little less confusing when you have several joins as our system = does. We may have to look at re-engineering our system as the original design = has dozens of table whith a field set like ID, Value to hold stuff like apprehension type, jobtitle etc. So we hold a main record with dozens of id's (and joins when reporting). Joel Fradkin =20