Re: Using ctid column changes plan drastically

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using ctid column changes plan drastically
Date: 2012-07-24 15:55:25
Message-ID: 22819.1343145325@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane, 24.07.2012 16:23:
>> IIRC, type tid doesn't have any hash support.

> So the "bad" plan is expected?

Joins on tid columns just aren't supported very well at the moment.
Partly that's from lack of round tuits, and partly it's because it
doesn't seem all that wise to encourage people to use them. There
are gotchas if any of the rows receive concurrent updates.

FWIW, it might be helpful to cast this as a NOT EXISTS rather than
NOT IN subquery.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Kellerer 2012-07-24 16:32:09 Re: Using ctid column changes plan drastically
Previous Message Maciek Sakrejda 2012-07-24 15:50:42 Re: Geoserver-PostGIS performance problems