"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gaetano,
>
> > QUERY PLAN
> > Hash Join (cost=265.64..32000.76 rows=40612 width=263) (actual
> > time=11074.21..11134.28 rows=10 loops=1)
> >Hash Cond: ("outer".id_user = "inner".id_user)
> >-> Seq Scan on user_logs ul (cost=0.00..24932.65 rows=125896
Gaetano,
> QUERY PLAN
> Hash Join (cost=265.64..32000.76 rows=40612 width=263) (actual
> time=11074.21..11134.28 rows=10 loops=1)
>Hash Cond: ("outer".id_user = "inner".id_user)
>-> Seq Scan on user_logs ul (cost=0.00..24932.65 rows=1258965 width=48)
> (actual time=0.02..8530.21 rows=1
Forget my PS to last message.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gaetano,
>
> > SELECT * from user_logs where id_user in (
> > 10943, 10942, 10934, 10927, 10910, 10909
> > );
> > [SNIPPED]
>
> > Why the planner or the executor ( I don't know ) do not follow
> > the same strategy ?
>
> It is, actually, according to th
Gaetano,
> SELECT * from user_logs where id_user in (
> 10943, 10942, 10934, 10927, 10910, 10909
> );
> [SNIPPED]
> Why the planner or the executor ( I don't know ) do not follow
> the same strategy ?
It is, actually, according to the query plan.
Can you post the EXPLAIN ANALYZE fo
