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

Re: 7.4.7: strange planner decision

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser(at)sigpipe(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.4.7: strange planner decision
Date: 2005-07-13 11:57:31
Message-ID: 42D501AB.5080306@archonet.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> Why does the planner want to crawl the table that has 5M rows instead of the one
> with 176k rows? Both tables are freshly vacuum-full-analyzed.

Because you don't have an index on "base" for the files table.

> callrec32=# \d fix.files
>               Table "fix.files"
>  Column |          Type          | Modifiers
> --------+------------------------+-----------
>  dir    | character varying(255) |
>  base   | character varying(255) |
> Indexes:
>     "base_storename_idx" btree (base, ((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))
>     "ff_storename_idx" btree (((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))

A couple of indexes, but none simple on "base", so it can't be used for 
the join.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: David PrattDate: 2005-07-13 12:00:47
Subject: Array as parameter for plpgsql function
Previous:From: Janning VygenDate: 2005-07-13 11:44:54
Subject: strange error with temp table: pg_type_typname_nsp_index

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