| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David Parker" <dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: query plan question |
| Date: | 2004-11-17 14:00:42 |
| Message-ID: | 11A038F0-38A1-11D9-B5CC-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Nov 17, 2004, at 7:32 AM, David Parker wrote:
> Oh, I didn't realize that analyze gave that much more info. I've got a
> lot to learn about this tuning stuff ;-)
>
> I've attached the output. I see from the new output where the slow
> query
> is taking its time (the nested loop at line 10), but I still have no
> idea why this plan is getting chosen....
>
looks like your stats are incorrect on the sparc.
Did you forget to run vacuum analyze on it?
also, do both db's have the same data loaded?
there are some very different numbers in terms of actual rows floating
around there...
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Parker | 2004-11-17 14:43:39 | Re: query plan question |
| Previous Message | David Parker | 2004-11-17 13:08:43 | Re: query plan question |