| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining views disables indexes? |
| Date: | 2005-11-01 23:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | 29380.1130887724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have a client that is testing an internal data platform, and they
> were happy with PostgreSQL until they tried to join views - at that
> time they discovered PostgreSQL was not using the indexes, and the
> queries took 24 hours to execute as a result.
You'll need to provide some actual details if you want useful comments.
Let's see the table schemas, the view definitions, and the EXPLAIN plan
(I'll spare you a request for EXPLAIN ANALYZE given that it'd take 24
hours to get ;-) ... although some estimate of the number of rows
expected would be helpful). And I trust they remembered to ANALYZE the
underlying tables first? Also, which PG version exactly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-02 01:19:37 | Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries? |
| Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-11-01 23:28:16 | Re: Joining views disables indexes? |