Pallav Kalva <pkalva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > select listing0_.listingid as col_0_0_, > getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) as col_1_0_ > from listing.listing listing0_ > left outer join listing.address listingadd1_ > on listing0_.fkbestaddressid=listingadd1_.addressid > left outer join listing.addressvaluation addressval2_ > on listingadd1_.addressid=addressval2_.fkaddressid > where listing0_.lastupdate>'2006-09-15 08:31:26.927' > and listing0_.lastupdate<=current_timestamp > or addressval2_.createdate>'2006-09-15 08:31:26.927' and > addressval2_.createdate<=current_timestamp > group by listing0_.listingid , listing0_.lastupdate > order by getmaxdate(listing0_.lastupdate, max(addressval2_.createdate)) > asc limit 10; If that WHERE logic is actually what you need, then getting this query to run quickly seems pretty hopeless. The database must form the full outer join result: it cannot discard any listing0_ rows, even if they have lastupdate outside the given range, because they might join to addressval2_ rows within the given createdate range. And conversely it can't discard any addressval2_ rows early. Is there any chance that you wanted AND not OR there? One thing that might help a bit is to change the join order: from listing.listing listing0_ left outer join listing.addressvaluation addressval2_ on listing0_.fkbestaddressid=addressval2_.fkaddressid left outer join listing.address listingadd1_ on listing0_.fkbestaddressid=listingadd1_.addressid so that at least the WHERE clause can be applied before having joined to listingadd1_. The semantics of your ON clauses are probably wrong anyway --- did you think twice about what happens if there's no matching listingadd1_ entry? regards, tom lane
