| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Lucas Madar <madar(at)samsix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Poor performance when joining against inherited tables |
| Date: | 2011-05-11 17:00:26 |
| Message-ID: | 508.1305133226@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A more interesting question is why you're not getting a plan like this:
> Nested Loop
> -> Seq Scan on objects
> -> Append
> -> Index Scan using xxx_pkey on itemXX
> -> Index Scan using yyy_pkey on itemYY
> -> Index Scan using zzz_pkey on itemZZ
Probably because there are 4 million rows in the objects table.
Or maybe it's a pre-8.2 database and can't even generate such a plan.
But if it did generate it, it would almost certainly have decided that
this was more expensive than a hash or merge join.
People have this weird idea that the existence of an index ought to make
enormous joins free ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre C | 2011-05-11 18:10:54 | Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-11 16:38:44 | Re: Poor performance when joining against inherited tables |