Re: add_path optimization

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: add_path optimization
Date: 2009-02-04 17:59:36
Message-ID: 4418.1233770376@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It would be worth checking whether you get the same plan without
>> the patch (you should, but let's check).

> Same plan.

Yeah, I just managed to reproduce a similar behavior in unpatched HEAD.
Now, since I'm running without any stats, it might be that it's
estimating similar costs for the one-key and two-key merges; but I don't
see why that would happen for you. Off to do some debugging.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Svenne Krap 2009-02-04 18:04:58 Re: LIMIT NULL
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2009-02-04 17:50:24 Re: LIMIT NULL