Re: 7.4.7: strange planner decision

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser(at)sigpipe(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.4.7: strange planner decision
Date: 2005-07-13 11:57:31
Message-ID: 42D501AB.5080306@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> Why does the planner want to crawl the table that has 5M rows instead of the one
> with 176k rows? Both tables are freshly vacuum-full-analyzed.

Because you don't have an index on "base" for the files table.

> callrec32=# \d fix.files
> Table "fix.files"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------+------------------------+-----------
> dir | character varying(255) |
> base | character varying(255) |
> Indexes:
> "base_storename_idx" btree (base, ((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))
> "ff_storename_idx" btree (((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))

A couple of indexes, but none simple on "base", so it can't be used for
the join.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Pratt 2005-07-13 12:00:47 Array as parameter for plpgsql function
Previous Message Janning Vygen 2005-07-13 11:44:54 strange error with temp table: pg_type_typname_nsp_index