On Jun 22, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Relyea, Mike wrote:
> Thanks Jim and Tom. At least now I've got a direction to head in. I
> think for now I'll probably reduce work_mem as a stop-gap measure
> to get
> the query running again. This will buy me some time to redesign it.
> I'll probably separate out each sub query and store the results in a
> table (would a temp table be a good solution here?) before I pull
> it all
> together with the final query.
Yes, it would. It's also possible that you could structure the query
better, to reduce the amount of concurrent sorting/hashing going on.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
