Re: Faster distinct query?
От | Rob Sargent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Faster distinct query? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 670727da-f703-bbd3-f239-9e208130b1f0@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Faster distinct query? (Israel Brewster <ijbrewster@alaska.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Faster distinct query?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 9/23/21 10:16 AM, Israel Brewster wrote:
I would look into pre-loading the lookup table (and pre-emptive maintenance). Add the foreign key, but not the trigger.On Sep 23, 2021, at 4:34 AM, Ryan Booz <ryan@timescale.com> wrote:Heh, I honestly forgot about the recursive CTE. Certainly worth a try and wouldn't require installing other extensions.This is what depesz is referring to: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscanThanks for the pointer. Will definitely have to spend some time wrapping my brain around that one - I’ve done some CTE’s before, but not recursive that I can recall. Should be fun!If it helps matters any, my structure is currently the following:table “stations” listing station details (name, latitude, longitude, etc) with a smallint primary key “id"table “data” with many (many!) data columns (mostly doubles), a station column that is a smallint referencing the stations table, and a channel column which is a varchar containing the *name* of the channel the data came in on.I will readily accept that this may not be the best structure for the DB. For example, perhaps the channel column should be normalized out as has been mentioned a couple of times as an option. This would make sense, and would certainly simplify this portion of the project.If I do go with a lookup table updated by a trigger, what would be the best option for the query the trigger runs - an upset (ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING)? Or a query followed by an insert if needed? The normal case would be that the entry already exists (millions of hits vs only the occasional insert needed).
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: