When you use the join syntax you did, you're explicitly telling postgres in what
order to join the tables. If you use the "classic" syntax as you described it,
postgres will do its best to figure out the best join order. It probably
couldn't hurt to try.
When you say you created all the necessary indices, do you mean that all the
fields used in the join criteria are indexed?
"Fabrizio Mazzoni" <fabrizio%macron.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 06/29/2001
09:47:01 AM
To: pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: [GENERAL] I: Help with indexes/queries/msaccess
Hi all...i'm converting an access db to postgres and i have a question on
indexes/queries. The following query, when launched on postgres with the
explain command, isn't using index scans but only sequential scans..why is
this?? I've created all the necessary indexes but the query is very very
slow...
This is the query:
[ query snipped]
This is a query generated with access 97 and modified to work on postgres..
The query executed on postgres is much much slower than on access 97..
I was thinking of rewriting it with the "classic" join syntax eg: select *
from a,b where a.a=b.b ...would this partially solve my problem??
Can anyone help me out.?
Thanks in advance..!
fabrizio@macrongolf.com
http://macrongolf.com
http://eteampoint.com
http://macron.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
