Re: Spatial join insists on sequential scan of larger table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Clive Page <cgp(at)star(dot)le(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spatial join insists on sequential scan of larger table
Date: 2004-04-02 15:46:26
Message-ID: 27943.1080920786@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Clive Page <cgp(at)star(dot)le(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> This executes, it need hardly be said, a whole lot faster.

Could we see EXPLAIN ANALYZE output?

The estimated costs for the two cases are nearly the same, which says to
me that there's something wrong with the cost model for r-tree lookups,
but I don't know what it is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-04-02 15:56:04 Re: single index on more than two coulumns a bad thing?
Previous Message Clive Page 2004-04-02 14:55:26 Spatial join insists on sequential scan of larger table