Re: dumb question - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: dumb question
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwbtJ67i0Oxn+-mgj5zPsh8jzjQ0_ntOEndw-bshxkTR1Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dumb question  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Responses Re: dumb question
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:11 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 6/2/2016 11:10 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Thanks all the below seem to do the trick.

On 06/02/2016 01:58 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
select max(id) from yourtable where sts=0 and id not in (select ref_id from yourtable);

select max(id) from yourtable where sts=0 and id not in (select ref_id from yourtable);


do note, this is whats known as an 'anti-join', and these can be pretty expensive on large tables.   

​+1
 
​Though I suspect that with a partial index on (id, sts=0) and (ref_id, ref_id IS NOT NULL), though highly sensitive to density, that even for large​ total row counts it would perform pretty well; but I'm not knowledgeable in how smart we are here.  Selecting, in descending order, (id where sts = 0), from the index and then poking into index(ref_id) should, particularly if the cross-set is sparse, pretty quickly find a non-match.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: dumb question
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL's listing in pg_xlog by some sql query