Re: Bad planner decision in Postgres

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Wakeling <mnw21(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bad planner decision in Postgres
Date: 2005-02-01 17:51:09
Message-ID: 15876.1107280269@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Matthew Wakeling <mnw21(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> [ snip... ]
> If we remove the limit, then the planner switches to this query plan:

> Limit (cost=156.24..156.26 rows=10 width=14)

... which still has a limit. I think you have made several cut-and-paste
errors here, because the plans you are exhibiting aren't legal for the
queries you say they are for. Nor do I see a reason that the planner
would use, eg, a Sort step for a query with no ORDER BY. Have you
perhaps been fooling with the various enable_xxx options to try to force
the planner to do what you think it should do?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2005-02-01 17:58:37 Re: Bad planner decision in Postgres
Previous Message Nigel Pegus 2005-02-01 17:16:05 install errors with dspace