| From: | Kent Tong <kent(dot)tong(dot)mo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: using sequential scan instead of index for join with a union |
| Date: | 2019-05-17 09:36:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAKs98dEZko_7SudbMCd-PRgyeAaA3xZwWYhySmn_EpK415_7jA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi, Sergei
Thanks! I've just double checked and they are the same:
\d notice
id | bigint | | not null |
nextval('notice_id_seq'::regclass)
mbct_id | bigint | | |
\d news
id | bigint | | not null |
nextval('news_id_seq'::regclass)
mbct_id | bigint | | |
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please check datatypes in union all part. Possible, notice.id or
> notice.mbct_id datatypes does not match with other tables.
>
> regards, Sergei
>
--
Kent Tong
IT author and consultant, child education coach
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-17 13:35:35 | Re: Analyze results in more expensive query plan |
| Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2019-05-17 09:23:19 | Re: using sequential scan instead of index for join with a union |