Re: Problem with large query
От | Adam Sah |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Problem with large query |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 413F1B85.9040302@speakeasy.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Problem with large query (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
by the way, this reminds me: I just ran a performance study at a company doing an oracle-to-postgres conversion, and FYI converting from numeric and decimal to integer/bigint/real saved roughly 3x on space and 2x on performance. Obviously, YMMV. adam Tom Lane wrote: > Marc Cousin <mcousin@sigma.fr> writes: > >>I'm having trouble with a (quite big) query, and can't find a way to make it >>faster. > > > Seems like it might help if the thing could use a HashAggregate instead > of sort/group. Numeric is not hashable, so having those TO_NUMBER > constants in GROUP BY destroys this option instantly ... but why in the > world are you grouping by constants anyway? You didn't say what the > datatypes of the other columns were... > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: