Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Mladen Gogala" <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Date: 2010-11-11 19:22:59
Message-ID: 4CDBEE3302000025000375D6@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I wrote:

> Besides the "fully-scanned object size relative to relation size
> costing adjustment" idea,

s/relation size/effective cache size/

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-11 19:35:56 Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-11 19:17:00 Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan