On 27-8-2005 16:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a nested loop normally so much (3x) more costly than a hash join? Or
is it just this query that gets estimated wronly?
There's been some discussion that we are overestimating the cost of
nestloops in
On 27-8-2005 0:56, Tom Lane wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, it chooses sequential scans or the wrong index plans over a
perfectly good plan that is just not selected when the parameters are
too well tuned or sequential scanning of the table is allowed.
I
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But appareantly there is a bug in the explain mechanism of the 8.1devel
I'm using (I downloaded a nightly 25 august somewhere in the morning
(CEST)), since it returned:
ERROR: bogus varno: 9
Yeah, someone else sent in a test case for this
On 26-8-2005 15:05, Richard Huxton wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
I left all the configuration-stuff to the defaults since changing
values didn't seem to impact much. Apart from the buffers and
effective cache, increasing those made the performance worse.
I've not looked at the rest
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, it chooses sequential scans or the wrong index plans over a
perfectly good plan that is just not selected when the parameters are
too well tuned or sequential scanning of the table is allowed.
I think some part of the problem comes
