Hi,
I have a query that is getting a pretty bad plan due to a massively
incorrect count of expected rows. All tables in the query were vacuum
analyzed right before the query was tested. Disabling nested loops
gives a significantly faster result (4s vs 292s).
Any thoughts on what I can change to
On 11/9/2010 3:26 PM, bricklen wrote:
Hi,
I have a query that is getting a pretty bad plan due to a massively
incorrect count of expected rows. All tables in the query were vacuum
analyzed right before the query was tested. Disabling nested loops
gives a significantly faster result (4s vs
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
On 11/9/2010 3:26 PM, bricklen wrote:
- Seq Scan on conversionrejected cr (cost=0.00..191921.82
rows=11012682 width=31) (actual time=0.003..1515.816 rows=11012682
loops=72)
Total runtime: 292668.992 ms
bricklen brick...@gmail.com writes:
I have a query that is getting a pretty bad plan due to a massively
incorrect count of expected rows.
The query doesn't seem to match the plan. Where is that OR (c.id =
38441828354::bigint) condition coming from?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
bricklen brick...@gmail.com writes:
I have a query that is getting a pretty bad plan due to a massively
incorrect count of expected rows.
The query doesn't seem to match the plan. Where is that OR (c.id =
bricklen brick...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The query doesn't seem to match the plan. Â Where is that OR (c.id =
38441828354::bigint) condition coming from?
Ah sorry, I was testing it with and without that part. Here is the
corrected
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
bricklen brick...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The query doesn't seem to match the plan. Where is that OR (c.id =
38441828354::bigint) condition coming from?
Ah sorry,
