X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C40D1BADA for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:37:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51737-02 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:37:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from frontlogic.com (gw.frontlogic.com [207.195.92.149]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8F6BD1B969 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:37:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 19007 invoked by uid 614); 20 Aug 2003 18:51:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Aug 2003 18:51:13 -0000 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:51:13 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Winter X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b In-Reply-To: <1061399435.40948.15.camel@jester> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200308/233 X-Sequence-Number: 14849 On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Rod Taylor wrote: > Ensure your IN list is unique. You might find better times by through > an indexed temp table. That is what I ended up doing, but it's not a very elegant solution. MySQL does queries of this type orders of magnitudes faster than Postgres on large value lists, although I have no specific algorithmic solutions to offer for how to make it faster. I don't believe making the IN lists unique has any affect on performance. -- _______________________________________________________________________ Front Logic Inc. Tel: 306.653.2725 x14 226 Pacific Ave or 1.800.521.4510 x14 Saskatoon, SK Fax: 306.653.0972 S7K 1N9 Canada Cell: 306.717.2550 http://www.frontlogic.com mike.winter@frontlogic.com