Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Organization: Archonet Ltd
To: josh@agliodbs.com, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:29:16 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <20020716114553.GB29323@wolff.to>
 <20020716192006.GC32419@wolff.to>
	<200207161542.23433.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200207161542.23433.josh@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200207171029.17572.dev@archonet.com>

On Tuesday 16 Jul 2002 11:42 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> OK, I guess I'll have to get into detail:
>
[detail on cases and trial-groups]
>
> Thus, I need to relate (in views and queries) each Event to the Union of
> Cases and Trial Groups.   I just can't figure out how to do so without the
> database discarding the indexes on Cases in the process and things slowing
> to a crawl.

Well, if there was some commonality between cases and trial groups you'd ha=
ve=20
noticed it. How about two event tables, one for each type of schedulable=20
event and unioning those?

Of course, that's just shuffling the complexity around since you'll need a=
=20
view with the relevant rewrites and possibly some way of detecting scheduli=
ng=20
conflicts?

- Richard Huxton