Re: Simple Join

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple Join
Date: 2005-12-14 22:47:03
Message-ID: 7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm running 8.1 installed from source on a Debian Sarge server. I have a
> simple query that I believe I've placed the indexes correctly for, and I
> still end up with a seq scan. It makes sense, kinda, but it should be able
> to use the index to gather the right values.

I continue to marvel at how many people think that if it's not using an
index it must ipso facto be a bad plan ...

That plan looks perfectly fine to me. You could try forcing some other
choices by fooling with the planner enable switches (eg set
enable_seqscan = off) but I doubt you'll find much improvement. There
are too many rows being pulled from ordered_products to make an index
nestloop a good idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Brown 2005-12-14 23:12:56 Re: Simple Join
Previous Message Zoltan Boszormenyi 2005-12-14 22:39:27 Re: Auto-tuning a VIEW?