Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Childs <Blue(dot)Dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)
Date: 2003-09-29 20:53:13
Message-ID: 20030929134904.L97764@megazone.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > As an update, so far I still am getting better results with NOT EXISTS
> > than the left join.
>
> Hm. Don't suppose you were using EXPLAIN ANALYZE so we could see what's
> happening? This is clearly a planner failure, although I'm unsure if we
> can expect the planner to get the right answer with no pg_statistic entries.

For the sort+seq one and the not exists, I had, but I'll re-run it (it's
on my home desktop that I won't be able to access). The other when I
forced it to use an index scan I haven't let complete yet, and I don't
know how long that will take.

I was also planning to run a set after running analyze, so I'll include
those too. It'll probably be a few hours before the results are in. :)

Are there any other options (enable_mergejoin, etc) that you want me to
try with?

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2003-09-29 21:01:34 Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-29 20:43:28 Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-29 21:25:37 Re: 7.4 status
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-29 20:43:28 Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)