Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: avoiding seqscan?

From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen(at)pingpong(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: avoiding seqscan?
Date: 2003-09-29 13:45:02
Message-ID: 202370000.1064843102@durian.pingpong.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
--On måndag, september 29, 2003 15.32.31 +0200 Gaetano Mendola 
<mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> wrote:

> Are not absolutelly bad but sometimes that path that you choose is not
> the optimal, in postgres 7.4 use the explicit join will be less
> limitative for the planner.
>
> Regards
> Gaetano Mendola

Ah, OK. True! In this case though, the sql questions are crafted with great 
care, since we have a lot of data in a few of the tables, other are almost 
empty, so we try to limit the amount of data as early as possible. Our 
experience says that we often do a better job than the planner, since we 
know which tables are "fat". Hence, we have actually moved to exlicit joins 
in questions and sometimes gained speed.

But, in the general case, implicit might be better, I guess.

Regards,
Palle




pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-09-29 13:48:35
Subject: Re: advice on raid controller
Previous:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2003-09-29 13:32:31
Subject: Re: avoiding seqscan?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group