-Messaggio originale-
Da: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: giovedì 13 maggio 2004 17.01
A: Fabio Panizzutti
Cc: 'Shridhar Daithankar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oggetto: Re: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables
differs . Why ?
Fabio Panizzutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: giovedì 13 maggio 2004 17.17
A: Fabio Panizzutti
Cc: 'Shridhar Daithankar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oggetto: Re: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables
differs . Why ?
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Fabio Panizzutti
Index Scan using pk_storico_misure_2 on storico_misure
(cost=0.00..1984.64 rows=658 width=21) (actual
time=723.441..1858.107
rows=835 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((data_tag '2004-05-03
00:00:00'::timestamp without
time zone) AND (data_tag '2004-05-12 00:00:00'::timestamp without
time
zone)
I trust in my hardware an O.S so fsync setting is a
big dubt for my production enviroment .
Then you are making a big mistake, loving your hardware more than your
data...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Inviato: venerdì 14 maggio 2004 11.55
A: Fabio Panizzutti
Cc: 'Manfred Koizar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oggetto: Re: R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables
differs . Why ?
I
Fabio Panizzutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand why the planner chose a different query plan on
identical tables with same indexes .
Different data statistics; not to mention different table sizes
(the cost equations are not linear).
Have you ANALYZEd (or VACUUM ANALYZEd) both
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di
Shridhar Daithankar
Inviato: giovedì 13 maggio 2004 15.05
A: Fabio Panizzutti
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oggetto: Re: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?
Fabio Panizzutti wrote: