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
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 |