From: | Steve Rogerson <steve(dot)pg(at)yewtc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Composite fields and the query planner |
Date: | 2013-05-07 08:49:16 |
Message-ID: | 5188C00C.3090704@yewtc.demon.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 05/05/13 15:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Steve Rogerson <steve(dot)pg(at)yewtc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> I'm seeing a problem with the query planner not doing what's expected, and I
>> think it is because we are using composite fields. Here is a stripped down
>> example.
>
> I tested this example in HEAD and 9.0.x and didn't see any particular
> problem with rowcount estimates for the get_part1() expression. You
> do have to have the i1 index in place when the table is analyzed, else
> ANALYZE won't collect any stats about the expression.
>
> regards, tom lane
I should have said I am using 9.0.7 - also I have "ANALYZEd" all the relevant
tables. Having said that I am having problems re-creating a rich enough example.
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Johann Spies | 2013-05-07 09:38:34 | Insert not finishing |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-05-06 23:43:03 | Re: "Unlogged indexes" |