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

Re: hashjoin chosen over 1000x faster plan

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: hashjoin chosen over 1000x faster plan
Date: 2007-10-10 19:35:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at  1:54 PM, in message
<1192042492(dot)4233(dot)334(dot)camel(at)ebony(dot)site>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> But the planner doesn't work on probability. It works on a best-guess
> selectivity, as known at planning time.
The point I'm trying to make is that at planning time the
pg_statistic row for this "Charge"."reopHistSeqNo" column showed
stanullfrac as 0.989; it doesn't seem to have taken this into account
when making its guess about how many rows would be joined when it was
compared to the primary key column of the "CaseHist" table.  I'm
suggesting that it might be a good thing if it did.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-10-10 19:52:25
Subject: Re: hashjoin chosen over 1000x faster plan
Previous:From: Theo KramerDate: 2007-10-10 19:34:00
Subject: Re: Performance problems with prepared statements

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