From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Edison Azzi <edisonazzi(at)terra(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Join the same row |
Date: | 2005-12-07 18:55:04 |
Message-ID: | 43973008.2000708@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Edison Azzi wrote:
> Richard Huxton escreveu:
>> However, even if you removed the condition on origem, I don't think
>> the planner will notice that it can eliminate the join. It's just too
>> unusual a case for the planner to have a rule for it.
>>
>> I might be wrong about the planner - I'm just another user. One of the
>> developers may correct me.
>
>
> You are rigth, the planner will not eliminate the join, see:
>
> select * from cta_pag a, cta_pag p where a.nrlancto=p.nrlancto and
> p.nrlancto = 21861;
>
> EXPLAIN:
> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..11.48 rows=1 width=816)
> -> Index Scan using cta_pag_pk on cta_pag a (cost=0.00..5.74 rows=1
> width=408)
> Index Cond: (21861::numeric = nrlancto)
> -> Index Scan using cta_pag_pk on cta_pag p (cost=0.00..5.74 rows=1
> width=408)
> Index Cond: (nrlancto = 21861::numeric)
>
>
> I know that this is too unusual case, but I hoped that the planner could
> deal
> with this condition. I´m trying to speed up without have to rewrite a
> bunch of
> queries. Now I'll have to think another way to work around this issue.
Is the performance really so bad? All the data is guaranteed to be
cached for the second index-scan.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-12-07 20:04:34 | Re: Performance degradation after successive UPDATE's |
Previous Message | Edison Azzi | 2005-12-07 18:45:12 | Re: Join the same row |