Re: Inefficient query plan

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: roederja(at)ethz(dot)ch, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inefficient query plan
Date: 2010-08-23 14:40:25
Message-ID: AANLkTim1GOMuN+EzEj9CcePUHQ=71uLhF=Dn3p1n3tpE@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I am not a fan of 'do this - this is best' response to queries like that.
Rather: this is what you should try, and choose whichever one suits you better.
So, rather than 'natural keys ftw', I am giving him another option to
choose from.

You see, in my world, I was able to improve some large dbs performance
10+ times fold, by going for surrogate keys. But in them cases, joins
were performed on 2+ varchar PK fields, and the whole thing was
crawwwling.

So, don't narrow down to one solution because it worked for you. Keep
an open book.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2010-08-23 14:41:01 Re: Inefficient query plan
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-23 14:38:35 Re: Inefficient query plan