Re: Simple join optimized badly?

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: 2006-10-10 16:45:34
Message-ID: 20061010164534.GA11843@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 23:33:03 +0200,
Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Just a comment from the side line; can't the rough "set
> enable_seqscan=off" be considered as sort of a hint anyway? There have
> been situations where we've actually had to resort to such crud.

That only works for simple queries. To be generally useful, you want to
be able to hint how to handle each join being done in the query. The
current controlls affect all joins.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tobias Brox 2006-10-10 17:06:39 Re: long running transactions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-10-10 16:42:52 Re: long running transactions