From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
Cc: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Really dumb planner decision |
Date: | 2009-04-16 11:42:30 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070904160442l361465b7i6c3a168956eb5c24@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2009/4/16 Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a query that is executed really badly by Postgres. It is a nine
>>> table
>>> join, where two of the tables are represented in a view. If I remove one
>>> of
>>> the tables from the query, then the query runs very quickly using a
>>> completely different plan.
>>
>> And what happens if you execute that view alone, with WHERE .. just
>> like it would be a part of the whole query? ((id = 1267676))
>
> Really quick, just like the query that works in my email.
What happens if you change join_collapse_limit and from_collapse_limit
to some huge number?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-FROM-COLLAPSE-LIMIT
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-04-16 12:05:13 | Re: Really dumb planner decision |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-04-16 11:31:42 | Re: Really dumb planner decision |