You might want to set join_collapse_limit high, and use the JOIN
operators rather than the comma-separated lists. We generate the WHERE
clause on the fly, based on user input, and this has worked well for us.
-Kevin
>>> "Dario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/18/05 2:24 PM >>>
Hi.
> Just out of curiosity, does it do any better with the following?
>
> SELECT ...
Yes, it does.
But my query could also be
SELECT ...
FROM a
JOIN b ON (a.key = b.key)
LEFT JOIN c ON (c.key = a.key)
LEFT JOIN d ON (d.key=a.key)
/*new*/ , e
WHERE (b.column <= 100)
/*new*/ and (e.key = a.key) and (e.field = 'filter')
because it's constructed by an application. I needed to know if,
somehow,
someway, I can "unforce" join order.
The only way to solve it so far is changing application. It must build
something like
SELECT ...
FROM b
JOIN (a JOIN e ON (e.key = a.key)) ON (a.key = b.key)
LEFT JOIN c ON (c.key = a.key)
LEFT JOIN d ON (d.key=a.key)
WHERE (b.column <= 100) and (e.field = 'filter')
Supossed that e.field has (should have) better selectivity. But now this
problem belongs to programmer's group :-)
The query, in fact, has more tables to join. I wonder if lowering geqo
threshold could do the work...
Thank you. Greetings. Long life, little spam and prosperity!
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nombre de Kevin
Grittner
Enviado el: lunes, 18 de julio de 2005 14:58
Para: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] join and query planner
Just out of curiosity, does it do any better with the following?
SELECT ...
FROM a
JOIN b ON (a.key = b.key)
LEFT JOIN c ON (c.key = a.key)
LEFT JOIN d ON (d.key=a.key)
WHERE (b.column <= 100)
>>> snipp
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
