X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A419DC81F
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:46:27 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 21125-08
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:46:30 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.152])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D269DC80F
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:46:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-24-20-199-254.hsd1.or.comcast.net[24.20.199.254])
	by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP
	id <20060215014628m1200ql651e>; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:46:28 +0000
Subject: Re: Non Matching Records in Two Tables
From: Ken Hill <ken@scottshill.com>
Reply-To: ken@scottshill.com
To: chester c young <chestercyoung@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <1139952295.3083.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060214210829.79695.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1139952295.3083.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-+NCWi5YNN8eSN6ZCxYi2"
Organization: Scotts Hill Associates, Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:47:02 -0800
Message-Id: <1139968023.25060.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.086 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.086
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200602/162
X-Sequence-Number: 24172


--=-+NCWi5YNN8eSN6ZCxYi2
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:24 -0800, Ken Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:08 -0800, chester c young wrote: 
> 
> > > Here is my query SQL:
> > > 
> > > SELECT key100 FROM ncccr10
> > > WHERE ncccr10.key100 NOT IN (SELECT key100 FROM ncccr9);
> > > 
> > > It is is running after 30 minutes. Here is the query plan:
> > >
> > 
> > I would try an outer join:
> > 
> > select a.key100
> > from ncccr10 a
> > left join ncccr9 b on( key100 )
> > where b.key100 is null;
> > 
> > also (hate to be obvious) have you analyzed lately?
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> >        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> >        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 
> Yes, I did a VACUUM ANALYZE on the entire database before running this
> query. Also, I get an error with your suggestion:
> 
> csalgorithm=# SELECT a.key100 FROM ncccr10 a
> csalgorithm-# LEFT JOIN ncccr9 b ON(a.key100)
> csalgorithm-# WHERE b.key100 IS Null;
> ERROR:  argument of JOIN/ON must be type boolean, not type character
> 

Well, this works:

SELECT *
FROM ncccr9 a
LEFT JOIN ncccr10 b USING( key100 )
WHERE b.key100 is null;

It still seems slow. It takes about the same time to run as in MS
Access. I thought PostgreSQL would be faster.

--=-+NCWi5YNN8eSN6ZCxYi2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.8.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:24 -0800, Ken Hill wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:08 -0800, chester c young wrote: </FONT>
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; Here is my query SQL:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; SELECT key100 FROM ncccr10</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; WHERE ncccr10.key100 NOT IN (SELECT key100 FROM ncccr9);</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; It is is running after 30 minutes. Here is the query plan:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt;</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="#000000">I would try an outer join:</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="#000000">select a.key100</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">from ncccr10 a</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">left join ncccr9 b on( key100 )</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">where b.key100 is null;</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="#000000">also (hate to be obvious) have you analyzed lately?</FONT>


<FONT COLOR="#000000">__________________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Do You Yahoo!?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</A> </FONT>

<FONT COLOR="#000000">---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">       subscribe-nomail command to <A HREF="mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org">majordomo@postgresql.org</A> so that your</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; message can get through to the mailing list cleanly</FONT>
</PRE>
    </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">Yes, I did a VACUUM ANALYZE on the entire database before running this query. Also, I get an error with your suggestion:</FONT><BR>
    <BR>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">csalgorithm=# SELECT a.key100 FROM ncccr10 a</FONT><BR>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">csalgorithm-# LEFT JOIN ncccr9 b ON(a.key100)</FONT><BR>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">csalgorithm-# WHERE b.key100 IS Null;</FONT><BR>
    <FONT COLOR="#000000">ERROR:&nbsp; argument of JOIN/ON must be type boolean, not type character</FONT><BR>
    <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, this works:<BR>
<BR>
SELECT *<BR>
FROM ncccr9 a<BR>
LEFT JOIN ncccr10 b USING( key100 )<BR>
WHERE b.key100 is null;<BR>
<BR>
It still seems slow. It takes about the same time to run as in MS Access. I thought PostgreSQL would be faster.
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-+NCWi5YNN8eSN6ZCxYi2--