On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/2010 10:45 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/21/2010 10:27 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Brian Hirt <bhirt@me.com> 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
givingyou the solutions to your problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe he's used to paid commercial support where people are often
>>>> quite rude and hostile to the support staff to try and "motivate" them
>>>> or something? I've seen it before for sure.
>>>>
>>>> Again, OP, what does EXPLAIN say about this query?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I should re-read, but I didn't feel any confrontation.
>>> Frustration for sure. OP has clearly tried pretty hard, on some tricky
>>> bits too, but I'm betting all for naught if (as seems likely) it's just
>>> mistaken sql. "update from" is NOT straight forward.
>>
>> True. His only real snark was in reponse to the "let me google that
>> for you" link. OTOH, he's arguing with Tom Lane about whether his SQL
>> is well formed. There's arguing on the internet is stupid, then
>> there's arguing with Tom Lane about SQL is stupid.
>
> Have to admit when I saw that I said to myself OP needs someone to tell
> him "whoa, big fella". I've been in similar situations where I was
> "sure" of one thing and the problem must be elsewhere, when of course I
> was wrong about the one thing...
Agreed, don't start tuning your server until you're done tuning your queries.
