On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 07:05 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Karim Nassar wrote:
> > Some improvement. Even better once it's cached. Row estimate didn't
> > change. Is this the best I can expect? Is there any other optimizations
> > I am missing?
>
> I'm not sure, really. Running a seq scan for each removed row in the
> referenced table doesn't seem like a particularly good plan in general
> though, especially if the average number of rows being referenced isn't
> on the order of 500k per value. I don't know what to look at next though.
>
Karim, please...
run the EXPLAIN after doing
SET enable_seqscan = off
Thanks,
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
