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 first fix the out of date stats and re-post both plans.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
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 ? |