From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Beutin <tyrone(at)laokoon(dot)IN-Berlin(dot)DE> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: left outer join terrible slow compared to inner join |
Date: | 2003-08-28 18:10:15 |
Message-ID: | 4774.1062094215@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thomas Beutin <tyrone(at)laokoon(dot)IN-Berlin(dot)DE> writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion, but the result is close to the original outer
> join without the explicit cross join but far away from the speed of the
> inner join.
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT DISTINCT pz.l1_id, pz.l2_id, pz.l3_id, pz.l4_id FROM ( ot_adresse AS a CROSS JOIN ot_produkt AS p) LEFT OUTER JOIN ot_kat_prod AS pz ON ( p.p_id = pz.p_id ) WHERE p.a_id = a.id AND a.id = '105391105424941' AND a.m_id = '37';
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> -> Subquery Scan pz (cost=0.00..1683.51 rows=40851 width=170) (actual time=0.03..485.07 rows=40917 loops=11)
> -> Seq Scan on o_kat_prod (cost=0.00..1683.51 rows=40851 width=170) (actual time=0.02..281.77 rows=40917 loops=11)
Hmm, I don't understand why ot_kat_prod is being treated as a subquery
here. It isn't a view or something is it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Clay Luther | 2003-08-28 18:26:16 | Re: left outer join terrible slow compared to inner join |
Previous Message | Thomas Beutin | 2003-08-28 16:53:25 | Re: left outer join terrible slow compared to inner join |