From: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exists |
Date: | 2001-08-21 18:08:26 |
Message-ID: | 3B82A39A.4060307@selectacast.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>>Limit (cost=48.39..48.39 rows=1 width=70)
>> -> Sort (cost=48.39..48.39 rows=2 width=70)
>> -> Hash Join (cost=18.46..48.38 rows=2 width=70)
>> -> Index Scan using u_p_key on u (cost=0.00..27.66 rows=48 width=28)
>> -> Hash (cost=18.39..18.39 rows=28 width=42)
>> -> Seq Scan on d (cost=0.00..18.39 rows=28 width=42)
>> SubPlan
>> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..4.04 rows=1 width=20)
>> -> Index Scan using a_pkey on a (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=1 width=4)
>> -> Index Scan using p_pkey on pu (cost=0.00..2.02 rows=1 width=16)
>> -> Index Scan using m_u_and_p_key on m (cost=0.00..3035.22 rows=1363
>>width=44)
>>
>
> At least, what was the query that generated this and is it running
> slowly or otherwise giving problems? The total explain doesn't seem
> unreasonable to my relatively untrained eyes in the absense of knowing the
> query :)
>
Well the total cost should be at least as big as the sub-costs, no? Doesn't that seem
strange?
--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-21 19:06:28 | Re: exists |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-08-21 17:57:53 | Re: exists |