From: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sub-select with aggregate
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:53:43 +0200
Message-ID: <3DB6B7F7.2030609@klaster.net> (raw)
References: <20021023071418.N4419-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Uz.ytkownik Stephan Szabo napisa?:
> But you can't do that anyway, because you don't expose group_id
> in the original query. I assume user_id was a mistake then and was
> meant to be group_id or that both were meant to be in the
> select list.
Yes, I meant group_id, but in orginal query I didn't have to add
group_id to select list.
> In the first case changing the order means that the output
> group_id column is X.group_id rather than users.group_id
> (using removes one of them which is why group_id isn't
> ambiguous. In the second it uses on to get both group_ids
> and exposes the one from X.
The problem isn't ambigous columns, but speed.
I think Postgres first performs sub-query with all records from table
(it takes very long time). After this Postgres permforms joining table
with sub-query. The question is: How to speed up query like this? How to
give param group_id from first table (users) to subquery?
Tomasz Myrta
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: jasiek@klaster.net, sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Subject: Re: sub-select with aggregate
In-Reply-To: <3DB6B7F7.2030609@klaster.net>
* 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