From: | "Sam Liddicott" <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Sam Liddicott" <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2 |
Date: | 2002-07-15 10:06:27 |
Message-ID: | D38A0FCD5830E848992DF2D4AF5F6F4F96AA3A@conwy.leeds.ananova.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:kleptog(at)svana(dot)org]
> Sent: 11 July 2002 00:37
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Sam Liddicott; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2
>
> I think there is a little problem with multiple seq scans in
> a single plan.
> If your plan is only doing a single seq scan on a large
> table, then the cost
> estimate is probably fine. But if the planner chooses the seq
> scan two large
> tables in parallel, the actual disk transfers degenerate to
> random access.
> But only if they are on the same disk.
>
> Should postgres be worrying about this?
I think it should. The same applies if two different queries are running
together of the same disk; which is probably any DB with allow_connections>1
Sam
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Brett | 2002-07-15 10:27:44 | okay so i deleted pg_log ..... |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-15 07:53:14 | Re: table and index size |