From: | Alexander Staubo <alex(at)bengler(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Dutcher <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Yet another slow nested loop |
Date: | 2009-06-16 13:58:35 |
Message-ID: | 88daf38c0906160658m23cdf97fs71d303a4415d6225@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Dave Dutcher<dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Staubo
>>
>> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5729774.95 rows=10420 width=116)
>> (actual time=262614.470..262614.470 rows=0 loops=1)
>> Join Filter: ((photos.taken_at > (event_instances."time" +
>> '-01:00:00'::interval)) AND (photos.taken_at < (event_instances."time"
>> + '07:00:00'::interval)))
>> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2055574.35 rows=11869630
>> width=120) (actual time=21.750..121838.012 rows=14013998 loops=1)
>
>
> Do you have any of the other enable_* options set to false?
No.
> What do you
> have random_page_cost set to? I ask because I'm surprised to see postgres
> choose to loop when it knows it will have to loop 11 million times.
The default, ie. 4.0.
A.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Tolley | 2009-06-16 14:13:22 | Re: performance with query |
Previous Message | Dave Dutcher | 2009-06-16 13:56:38 | Re: Yet another slow nested loop |