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

Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Mladen Gogala" <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Date: 2010-11-11 19:22:59
Message-ID: 4CDBEE3302000025000375D6@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
I wrote:
 
> Besides the "fully-scanned object size relative to relation size
> costing adjustment" idea,
 
s/relation size/effective cache size/
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-11 19:35:56
Subject: Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-11 19:17:00
Subject: Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan

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