Re: need to speed up query - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Justin |
---|---|
Subject | Re: need to speed up query |
Date | |
Msg-id | 48209863.9070709@emproshunts.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: need to speed up query (PFC <lists@peufeu.com>) |
List | pgsql-performance |
PFC wrote: > >>> What is a "period" ? Is it a month, or something more "custom" ? >>> Can periods overlap ? > >> No periods can never overlap. If the periods did you would be in >> violation of many tax laws around the world. Plus it you would not >> know how much money you are making or losing. > > I was wondering if you'd be using the same query to compute how > much was gained every month and every week, which would have > complicated things. > But now it's clear. > >> To make this really funky you can have a Fiscal Calendar year start >> June 15 2008 and end on June 14 2009 > > Don't you just love those guys ? Always trying new tricks to make > your life more interesting. Thats been around been around a long time. You can go back a few hundreds years >>> Note that here you are scanning the entire table multiple times, >>> the complexity of this is basically (rows in gltrans)^2 which is >>> something you'd like to avoid. >>> >> For accounting purposes you need to know the Beginning Balances, >> Debits, Credits, Difference between Debits to Credits and the >> Ending Balance for each account. We have 133 accounts with >> presently 12 periods defined so we end up 1596 rows returned for this >> query. > > Alright, I propose a solution which only works when periods don't > overlap. > It will scan the entire table, but only once, not many times as > your current query does. > >> So period 1 should have for the most part have Zero for Beginning >> Balances for most types of Accounts. Period 2 is Beginning Balance >> is Period 1 Ending Balance, Period 3 is Period 2 ending balance so >> and so on forever. > > Precisely. So, it is not necessary to recompute everything for > each period. > Use the previous period's ending balance as the current period's > starting balance... > > There are several ways to do this. > First, you could use your current query, but only compute the sum > of what happened during a period, for each period, and store that in a > temporary table. > Then, you use a plpgsql function, or you do that in your client, > you take the rows in chronological order, you sum them as they come, > and you get your balances. Use a NUMERIC type, not a FLOAT, to avoid > rounding errors. > > The other solution does the same thing but optimizes the first > step like this : > INSERT INTO temp_table SELECT period, sum(...) GROUP BY period > > To do this you must be able to compute the period from the date > and not the other way around. You could store a period_id in your > table, or use a function. > > Another much more efficient solution would be to have a summary > table which keeps the summary data for each period, with beginning > balance and end balance. This table will only need to be updated when > someone finds an old receipt in their pocket or something. > As i posted earlier the software did do this but it has so many bugs else where in the code it allows it get out of balance to what really is happening. I spent a several weeks trying to get this working and find all the places it went wrong. I gave up and did this query which took a day write and balance to a point that i turned it over to the accountant. I redid the front end and i'm off to the races and Fixing other critical problems. All i need to do is take Shanun Thomas code and replace the View this select statement creates >> This falls under the stupid question and i'm just curious what other >> people think what makes a query complex? > > I have some rather complex queries which postgres burns in a few > milliseconds. > You could define complexity as the amount of brain sweat that went > into writing that query. > You could also define complexity as O(n) or O(n^2) etc, for > instance your query (as written) is O(n^2) which is something you > don't want, I've seen stuff that was O(2^n) or worse, O(n!) in > software written by drunk students, in this case getting rid of it is > an emergency... > Thanks for your help and ideas i really appreciate it.
pgsql-performance by date: