Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It was bit too vague to be a comfortable DB tuning problem.

> Completely too little information, and it stopped with Tom asking for
> additional information.

There was something awfully fishy about that.  Brian was saying that he
got a seqscan plan out of "WHERE foo = 100", where foo is an integer
primary key.  That's just not real credible, at least not once you get
past the couple of standard issues that were mentioned in the thread.
And we never did get word one of information about his join problems.

> I don't think Brian has any interest in being helped.

I suspect he'd made up his mind already.  Which is his privilege, but
it'd be nice to have some clue what the problem was ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to