From: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Query palns and tug-of-war with enable_sort |
Date: | 2009-02-18 23:30:32 |
Message-ID: | 236173.51954.qm@web23607.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> No, those aren't the same plans. In particular
> what's bothering me is
> the lack of any sort in the first plan you showed (the one
> with
> HashAggregate at the top). That shouldn't be possible
> because of the
> ORDER BY --- a hash aggregate will deliver unsorted output
> so there
> should be a sort step above it.
Ah, retracing my steps forget that; there's no sort because it's not the same query at all.
explain Select
mult_ord.mult_ref
From
credit Inner Join
mult_ord On mult_ord.transno = credit.transno
Where
(credit.show = 450000 Or
credit.show = 450001) And
credit."date" >= '2009-02-16' And
credit."date" <= '2009-02-16' And
credit.cancelled = ' ' group by mult_ref;
Lets just say it's been a long day.
Going back to my original point though, is there any way to get the planner to choose a better plan for the original distinct query? Or is it just a simple no because I set enable_sort to off?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-18 23:44:01 | Re: Postgres service fails to start on Windows 2003 |
Previous Message | Mike Christensen | 2009-02-18 22:31:24 | Re: Postgres service fails to start on Windows 2003 |