On 5/11/11 3:04 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote: > The original query, with our very large tables, ran for over *two hours* > thanks to a nested loop iterating over the subquery. My replacement ran > in roughly 30 seconds. If we were using a newer version of PG, we could > have used a CTE. But do you get what I mean? Temp tables are a fairly > common technique, but how would a coder know about CTEs? They're pretty > new, even to *us*. For that matter, it would be even better if PostgreSQL realized that a materialize of the subquery was a better execution plan, and just did it for you. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
