Using a single SQL correlated sub-query to get two columns

Question

My problem is represented by the following query:

SELECT 
  b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something,
  (SELECT a.x FROM my_table a WHERE a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1), a.something != 42 ) AS source_x,
  (SELECT a.y FROM my_table a WHERE a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1), a.something != 42 ) AS source_y
FROM 
  my_table b

I'm using the same subquery statement twice, for getting both source_x and source_y. That's why I'm wondering if it's possible to do it using one subquery only?

Because once I run this query on my real data (millions of rows) it seems to never finish and take hours, if not days (my connection hang up before the end).

I am using PostgreSQL 8.4

score 8 · Answer 1 · answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:24

8

I think you can use this approach:

SELECT b.row_id
     , b.x
     , b.y
     , b.something
     , a.x
     , a.y
  FROM my_table b
  left join my_table a on a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1)
                      and a.something != 42

answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:24

DavidEG

5,857
3
29
44

Erwin Brandstetter · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-06T17:08:18.960

@DavidEG posted the best syntax for the query.

However, your problem is definitely not just with the query technique. A JOIN instead of two subqueries can speed up things by a factor of two at best. Most likely less. That doesn't explain "hours". Even with millions of rows, a decently set up Postgres should finish the simple query in seconds, not hours.

First thing that stands out is the syntax error in your query:
```
... WHERE a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1), a.something != 42
```
AND or OR is needed here, not a comma.
Next thing to check are indexes. If row_id is not the primary key, you may not have an index on it. For optimum performance of this particular query create a multi-column index on (row_id, something) like this:
```
CREATE INDEX my_table_row_id_something_idx ON my_table (row_id, something)
```
If the filter excludes the same value every time in something != 42you can also use a partial index instead for additional speed up:
```
CREATE INDEX my_table_row_id_something_idx ON my_table (row_id)
WHERE something != 42
```
This will only make a substantial difference if 42 is a common value or something is a bigger column than just an integer. (An index with two integer columns normally occupies the the same size on disk as an index with just one, due to data alignment. See:
- Calculating and saving space in PostgreSQL
- Is a composite index also good for queries on the first field?
When performance is an issue, it is always a good idea to check your settings. Standard settings in Postgres use minimal resources in many distributions and are not up to handling "millions of rows".
Depending on your actual version of Postgres, an upgrade to a current version (9.1 at the time of writing) may help a lot.
Ultimately, hardware is always a factor, too. Tuning and optimizing can only get you so far.

I trier the partial index and then @DavidEG query and had the new table very quickly. Thanks a lot! — Julie F-C, Nov 07 '11 at 20:29
@JulieFen-Chong: Cool. :) A fitting index is essential with millions of rows. — Erwin Brandstetter, Nov 07 '11 at 22:17

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered May 08 '21 at 17:12

Postgres:

    SELECT 
      b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something,
      source_x,
      source_y
    FROM 
      my_table b,
LATERAL(SELECT a.x AS source_x, a.y AS source_y FROM my_table a WHERE a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1), a.something != 42 )

MsSQL

SELECT 
      b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something,
      source_x,
      source_y
    FROM 
      my_table b
OUTER APPLY(SELECT a.x AS source_x, a.y AS source_y FROM my_table a WHERE a.row_id = (b.row_id - 1), a.something != 42 )

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:31

0

old-fashioned syntax:

SELECT 
  b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something
  , a.x AS source_x
  , a.y AS source
FROM my_table b
    ,my_table a 
WHERE a.row_id = b.row_id - 1
  AND a.something != 42
  ;

Join-syntax:

SELECT 
  b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something
  , a.x AS source_x
  , a.y AS source
FROM my_table b
JOIN my_table a 
  ON (a.row_id = b.row_id - 1)
WHERE a.something != 42
  ;

answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:31

wildplasser

43,142
8
66
109

You need `LEFT JOIN` for the requested result. DavidEG nailed it. – Erwin Brandstetter Nov 06 '11 at 23:11
Yeah, the subqueries are supposed to return NULL if nothing is found. But is was too ugly, I suppose ... – wildplasser Nov 06 '11 at 23:47

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:47

0

SELECT b.row_id, b.x, b.y, b.something, a.x, a.y
  FROM my_table b
  LEFT JOIN (
    SELECT row_id + 1, x, y
      FROM my_table
      WHERE something != 42
  ) AS a ON a.row_id = b.row_id;

answered Nov 06 '11 at 19:47

Neil

54,642
8
60
72

That would work, but is probably very slow, because you have to increment every row with `something != 42` (likely most of the "millions of rows") before the join, impeding the use of a standard index for the join as a side effect. – Erwin Brandstetter Nov 06 '11 at 23:52
@ErwinBrandstetter I see what you mean, I should have kept `a.row_id = b.row_id - 1` in the join condition instead. I was concentrating too much on moving the `something != 42` into the subquery. – Neil Nov 07 '11 at 22:09

Using a single SQL correlated sub-query to get two columns

5 Answers5