| From: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planner picking topsey turvey plan? |
| Date: | 2008-12-08 13:14:15 |
| Message-ID: | 161682.80009.qm@web23604.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-general |
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>
> You've provided no evidence that this is a bad plan.
>
Looks like I didn't take the time to understand properly what the explains were showing.
> In particular, the plan you seem to think would be better
> would involve
> an estimated 153 iterations of the cost-15071 hash
> aggregation, which
> simple arithmetic shows is more expensive than the plan it
> did choose.
>
I'd totally missed that all the cost was in the view that I'd created.
Thanks tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Scott | 2008-12-08 14:36:35 | Change user password |
| Previous Message | Rafael Domiciano | 2008-12-08 13:04:45 | Re: Vacuum Problems |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephane Bortzmeyer | 2008-12-08 13:20:54 | Re: Multi Lingual problem |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-12-08 12:21:39 | Re: Prepared statement already exists |