On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Sok Ann Yap wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> Please show us your overall configuration and give a description
>>> of the hardware (how many of what kind of cores, how much RAM,
>>> what s
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Sok Ann Yap wrote:
>
>> Anyway, the overhead of spawning 44 extra queries means that it is
>> still better off for me to stick with the original query and tune
>> PostgreSQL to choose index scan.
>
> Maybe, bu
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Sok Ann Yap wrote:
>
>> So, index scan wins by a very small margin over sequential scan
>> after the tuning. I am a bit puzzled because index scan is more
>> than 3000 times faster in this case, but the estimate
Hi,
I am using PostgreSQL 9.0. There is a salutations table with 44 rows,
and a contacts table with more than a million rows. The contacts table
has a nullable (only 0.002% null) salutation_id column, referencing
salutations.id.
With this query:
SELECT
salutations.id,
salutations.name,
