| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Menendez" <dave(at)sycamorehq(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Query planner quirk? |
| Date: | 2002-04-15 15:05:48 |
| Message-ID: | 23157.1018883148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Dave Menendez" <dave(at)sycamorehq(dot)com> writes:
> Any comments?
Can't say much useful with such a selective report. It'd be interesting
to see the EXPLAIN output in all four cases (small bank_id list for both
index and seq scans, ditto for large bank_id list). Also, I don't
believe the bank_id IN () part can contribute to the index condition,
so the critical number is how many rows will match just time_id = 'P_6'
and org_allow = 1. How many such rows are there really, and how many
does the planner estimate (use EXPLAIN with just those clauses in
WHERE)?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-15 15:10:10 | Re: size of NULL field? |
| Previous Message | ajimenez@servidor.unam.mx | 2002-04-15 15:05:03 | Re: I would preffer that postgresql start with the flag |