Re: Simple Join

From: Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple Join
Date: 2005-12-14 23:12:56
Message-ID: 200512141712.56919.blargity@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:47, you wrote:
> Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm running 8.1 installed from source on a Debian Sarge server. I have a
> > simple query that I believe I've placed the indexes correctly for, and I
> > still end up with a seq scan. It makes sense, kinda, but it should be
> > able to use the index to gather the right values.
>
> I continue to marvel at how many people think that if it's not using an
> index it must ipso facto be a bad plan ...
>
> That plan looks perfectly fine to me. You could try forcing some other
> choices by fooling with the planner enable switches (eg set
> enable_seqscan = off) but I doubt you'll find much improvement. There
> are too many rows being pulled from ordered_products to make an index
> nestloop a good idea.

That's fine, so being a postgres novice, as I stated in my original post, what
would be the best way to improve performance? Redundant column that's
updated via a trigger? I'm asking this list because I'd like to do it right,
as opposed to get it done.

> regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2005-12-14 23:23:20 Re: Simple Join
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-14 22:47:03 Re: Simple Join