Re: full join in view - Mailing list pgsql-sql
From | jasiek@klaster.net |
---|---|
Subject | Re: full join in view |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20030114200233.GA16310@serwer Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: full join in view ("Tambet Matiisen" <t.matiisen@aprote.ee>) |
List | pgsql-sql |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:27:22PM +0200, Tambet Matiisen wrote: > > First I would like to say, that I'm quite amazed. You even guessed table names right! :) I did not expect such an in-depthanalysis in such a short time. Thanks, Tomasz! It wasn't difficult - these names where in foreign keys definition. > > > > > > > Tambet Matiisen wrote: > > > > > > Is dor_kst_id the same as kdt_kst_id and as mat_id? After > > some database > > practicing I found, that using the same name in all tables is > > much more > > comfortably > > > This way I can refer most columns without prefixing them with table alias. But it's anyway good habit to use table aliases,so this is not that important. I think in next project I try it in your way. If you have joins like this: table1 join table2 using (field1) duplicates of field1 disappears and you don't need table name. > > > For each material (materjalid) and koostud (koostud) you want to find > > some current value (koostude_detaild) and compare it to some sum > > (documentid...)? > > I'm not sure if I understand well your view, but here is my > > version of > > this view - without subquery: > > > > I tried to save few scans by not including "koostud" and "materjalid" in my original query. Based on yours, I created anew version: If you need only not null-kdt_id and dor_id, then just change your joins into inner joins. If you are sure, that you will get only not-null results, you don't need to include koostud and marerjalid. The result is: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW v_tegelikud_kulud2 AS SELECT kdt.kdt_kst_id as kst_id, kdt.kdt_mat_id as mat_id, max(kdt.detaili_nr) AS detaili_nr, max(kdt.arv) AS arv, max(kdt.kulu) AS kulu, max(kdt.yhik) AS yhik, max(kdt.koefitsent) AS koefitsent, max(kdt.eeldatav_hind) AS eeldatav_hind, sum(dor.kogus * dor.koefitsent::numeric) AS kogus, sum(dor.kokku) AS kokku FROM koostude_detailid kdt JOIN dokumentide_read dor ON kdt.kdt_kst_id = dor.dor_kst_id AND kdt.kdt_mat_id = dor.dor_mat_id AND EXISTS ( SELECT 1 FROM dokumendid dok WHERE dor.dor_dok_id = dok.dok_id AND dok.tyyp = 30 AND dok.kinnitaja IS NOTNULL ) GROUP BY kst.kst_id, mat.mat_id; > But there are still few things that worry me: > 1. Cross join between koostud and materjalid. Table "materjalid" may have up to 10000 rows and only 20-30 of them are actuallyneeded. You don't need it anymore. Anyway I thought, that you have in your query "mat_id=.. and kst_id=.." > 2. Indeces on "koostude_detailid" and "dokumentide_read" are not used. Probably my tables do not contain enough rows. MaybeI should generate more test data first. > 3. The cost of this query is twice as big, as my original query. It seems to me, that SubPlan is causing this. I triedto move it to subquery, but then the optimizer chose a totally different execution plan and seemingly was not able touse indeces of "dokumentide_read" table. The version with subquery: > Now it should work better. Tomasz Myrta