| From: | Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: totally different plan when using partitions + request |
| Date: | 2009-08-13 14:49:22 |
| Message-ID: | 831206.41080.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > -> Index Scan using
> teststscell13_pkey on teststscell13 data1 (cost=0.0..3.9
> rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.006..0.006 rows=0
> loops=285)
> >
> > doesn't make any sense: that table will never have any
> data.
> > I'd like to have a way to tell that to Postgresql...
>
> It's one index probe and takes virtually no time at all.
> That's not your problem.
>
Put that in a 60000 nested loop and it won't be "virtually no time at all" I'm afraid... to the planner that "3.9 cost" almost the same as an index scan on a populated table...
Hence the planner uses a different plan.
Otherwise I don't see why the 2 plans should be different...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roderick A. Anderson | 2009-08-13 14:54:36 | Re: PostgreSQL for Firefox Bookmarks? |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-08-13 14:30:52 | Re: totally different plan when using partitions + request |