Re: [PGSQL v8.2.5] Similar queries behave differently

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Reg Me Please" <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PGSQL v8.2.5] Similar queries behave differently
Date: 2007-10-25 11:20:40
Message-ID: 87lk9rl9tj.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> "Reg Me Please" <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> -> Seq Scan on tt_elem (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=8)
>> (actual time=0.012..0.013 rows=1 loops=1)
>
> The discrepancy etween the estimated rows and actual rows makes me think
> you've not analyzed this table in a long time. It's probably best to analyze
> the whole database to have a consistent set of statistics and to catch any
> other old table stats.
>
> There could be other misestimations based due to Postgres limitations but
> first fix the out of date stats and re-post both plans.

Actually it's pretty clear there are some other bad estimations as well. You
should send along the view definition too.

And I would recommend you try it with a normal JOIN ON/USING instead of the
NATURAL JOIN. It's possible it's joining on some unexpected columns -- though
that doesn't really look like it's the case here.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-10-25 11:31:01 Re: select count() out of memory
Previous Message Peter Childs 2007-10-25 11:15:14 Re: conditional alter table add ?