[ cc list limited to -performance ]
Derek Buttineau|Compu-SOLVE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems to me a merge join might be more appropriate here than a
>> nestloop.
After some experimentation, I don't seem to be able to get the planner
to generate a mergejoin based on a backwards index s
Thanks for the response :)
That's 50-ish ms versus 80-odd seconds.
It seems to me a merge join might be more appropriate here than a
nestloop. What's your work_mem set at? Off-the-cuff numbers show the
dataset weighing in the sub-ten mbyte range.
Provided it's not already at least that big, and yo
while you weren't looking, Derek Buttineau|Compu-SOLVE wrote:
> I'm hoping this is the right place to send this.
The PostgreSQL Performance list, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
would be more appropriate. I'm copying my followup there, as well.
As for your query, almost all the time is actually
