Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, assume tab2.col2 equals 3. I assume this would cause an index > scan because the executor doesn't know about the most common value, > right? Is it worth trying to improve that? Oh, I see: you are assuming that a nestloop join is being done, and wondering if it's worthwhile to switch dynamically between seqscan and indexscan for each scan of the inner relation, depending on exactly what value is being supplied from the outer relation for that scan. Hmm. Not sure if it's worth the trouble or not. Nestloop is usually a last-resort join strategy anyway, and is unlikely to be picked when the tables are large enough to make performance be a big issue. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inser... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on i... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Franck Martin
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance on inserts Bruce Momjian