From: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, albert(at)sedifa(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Posible planner improvement? |
Date: | 2008-05-25 08:21:33 |
Message-ID: | 20080525082133.GB27965@cuci.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Decibel! wrote:
>For reference, the original query as posted to -performance:
>select * from t1, t2 where t1.id > 158507 and t1.id = t2.id;
>That took > 84 minutes (the query was a bit longer but this is the
>part that made the difference) after a little change the query took
>~1 second:
Just out of curiosity, would predefining the order of join have solved
the issue, as in:
a. select * from t1 join t2 using(id) where t1.id > 158507;
vs.
b. select * from t2 join t1 using(id) where t1.id > 158507;
I'd expect a to be faster than b, is it?
--
Sincerely, srb(at)cuci(dot)nl
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Technology is stuff that doesn't work yet." -- Bran Ferren
"We no longer think of chairs as technology." -- Douglas Adams
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2008-05-25 12:27:46 | Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |
Previous Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2008-05-25 06:19:40 | DROP ROLE dependency tracking ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-05-26 11:30:00 | Re: Posible planner improvement? |
Previous Message | Jeffrey Baker | 2008-05-24 20:39:15 | Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron? |