Re: Planner really hates nested loops

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Brown <time(at)bigpond(dot)net(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planner really hates nested loops
Date: 2005-02-03 16:25:31
Message-ID: 16694.1107447931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

David Brown <time(at)bigpond(dot)net(dot)au> writes:
> I'm hoping someone can shed some light on these results.

Not without a lot more detail on how you *got* the results. What
exactly did you do to force the various plan choices? (I see some
ridiculous choices of indexscans, for instance, suggesting improper use
of enable_seqscan in some cases.) And what's the "cache rows" and "disk
rows" stuff, and how do you know that what you were measuring is
actually what you think it is? I have zero confidence in
Windows-atop-ATA as a platform for measuring disk-related behaviors,
because I don't think you can control or even know what caching is
going on.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-03 16:27:38 Re: GiST indexes and concurrency (tsearch2)
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2005-02-03 15:15:32 Re: [PERFORM] Tunning postgresql on linux (fedora core 3)