From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Oleg Lebedev <oleg(dot)lebedev(at)waterford(dot)org> |
Cc: | Jenny Zhang <jenny(at)osdl(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TPC-R benchmarks |
Date: | 2003-09-26 04:28:54 |
Message-ID: | 8486.1064550534@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Oleg Lebedev <oleg(dot)lebedev(at)waterford(dot)org> writes:
> Seems like in your case postgres uses an i_l_partkey index on lineitem
> table. I have a foreign key constraint defined between the lineitem and
> part table, but didn't create an special indexes. Here is my query plan:
The planner is obviously unhappy with this plan (note the large cost
numbers), but it can't find a way to do better. An index on
lineitem.l_partkey would help, I think.
The whole query seems like it's written in a very inefficient fashion;
couldn't the estimation of '0.2 * avg(l_quantity)' be amortized across
multiple join rows? But I dunno whether the TPC rules allow for
significant manual rewriting of the given query.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-26 07:25:15 | Re: Indices arent being used |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-09-26 03:41:15 | Re: TPC-R benchmarks |