On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Tim Uckun <timuckun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Brian Hirt <bhirt@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> There are only two tables in the query. >>> >> >> Tim, >> >> No, your query is written incorrectly. I don't understand why you come on to this list all hostile and confrontational. Regardless, people still try to help you and then you still ignore the advice of people that are giving you the solutions to your problems. > > > I don't think I was hostile. I think people were hostile to me as a > matter of fact. > > I asked a question and the first reply was really snarky and unhelpful. Agreed. But when Tom pointed out the problem in your query you were quite sure you couldn't be wrong. When I asked you to run explain to see what kind of row estimate you got, I got no answer. This was a query problem not a hardware tuning problem. The best step for getting a good answer is forming a good question. So, has changing the query made it faster? Did explain show what I expect, a huge cartesian product? Just guessing. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
