From: | Hunter Hillegas <lists(at)lastonepicked(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |
Date: | 2003-04-23 05:14:35 |
Message-ID: | BACB6F4B.A5CC6%lists@lastonepicked.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Okay... So the planner is in great shape and chose the right solution...
Can anyone point me in another direction to optimize this for some more
speed? Other query suggestions? System setting changes? My impatient users
don't like to wait. :-)
Any help is very much appreciated.
Hunter
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:09:39 -0400
> To: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
> Cc: "Hunter Hillegas" <lists(at)lastonepicked(dot)com>, "Stephan Szabo"
> <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Left Join Not Using Index?
>
> "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>> This guess:
>>> 40855.59 msec
>> Certainly seems slower than this one:
>>> 13108.33 msec
>
> Those are not guesses, those are measurements. Translation: the planner
> made the right choice here. (Hot diggety ;-))
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-23 05:30:05 | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-23 05:09:39 | Re: Left Join Not Using Index? |