Re: Wrong plan for simple join with index on FK

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wrong plan for simple join with index on FK
Date: 2006-05-16 13:13:24
Message-ID: BAY20-F10C299B06297B668F3A6C7F9A00@phx.gbl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > >These are all minor abberations though, on the whole the estimates
>are
> > >pretty good. Perhaps you need to tweak the values of random_page_cost
> > >and similar variables.
> >
> > Thank You, It's general problem or only mine? I have "100%"
> > standard current PC.
>
>The default random_page_cost assumes some concurrent activity. If your
>PC does nothing else concurrently, the performance of a seq scan will
>be underestimated.
>
>Try to do the statement with some concurrent disk load and you will most
>likely
>see that the 1. plan is faster. (assuming the tables are not fully
>cached)
>
>Andreas

ok. I tested it with pgbench and it's true. With -c 50 merge_join is
faster. I didn't expect it.

Thank You
Pavel

_________________________________________________________________
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
http://www.msn.cz/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-16 13:25:52 Re: psql feature thought
Previous Message Bort, Paul 2006-05-16 13:09:51 Re: Compression and on-disk sorting