| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: IN not handled very well? |
| Date: | 2006-09-27 03:21:11 |
| Message-ID: | 03B144F0-FC55-41C0-B865-5DBF8816DB76@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sep 24, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Ben wrote:
> Ah, so I do. Thanks, that helps an awful lot.
>
> But the plan is still twice as expensive as when I put in the
> static values. Is it just unreasonable to expect the planner to see
> that there aren't many rows in the subselect, so to use the bitmap
> scans after all?
Based on your initial post, it probably should know that it's only
getting 15 rows (since it did in your initial plan), so it's unclear
why it's not choosing the bitmap scan.
Can you post the results of EXPLAIN ANALYZE?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-09-27 03:28:41 | Re: PostgreSQL and sql-bench |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-09-27 03:14:15 | Re: Update on high concurrency OLTP application and Postgres |