Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Posible planner improvement?

From: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Albert Cervera Areny <albert(at)sedifa(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Posible planner improvement?
Date: 2008-05-26 11:30:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hello Albert,

Albert Cervera Areny <albert(at)sedifa(dot)com> wrote:

> I've got a query similar to this:
> select * from t1, t2 where > 158507 and =;
> 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:
> select * from t1, t2 where > 158507 and > 158507 and = 

I had a similar problem here:
and added a redundant inequality explicitly to make it work well.

I think it is worth trying to improve, but I'm not sure we can do it
against user defined types. Does postgres always require transitive law
to all types?

ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-05-26 13:03:17
Subject: Re: I/O on select count(*)
Previous:From: Stephen R. van den BergDate: 2008-05-25 08:21:33
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Posible planner improvement?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group