DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk;
	h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
	b=Z5cdewyWua7aYJzvZqnZD77K8Fbjr4yPZ4PI1rfX8GZ3T/O6u73I6oGnS1pdb843yUONnUhSfdYgxuYtvatagETFmu57MQfvxbQoKavcSQguYT5UH5UeB8MTQqYs6ynYb/srjfiegYw6v7mWBvZt+iwUcFQ16bCH+DIcIHiNy78=;
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:14:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: glynastill@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Planner picking topsey turvey plan?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <5092.1228701731@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <161682.80009.qm@web23604.mail.ird.yahoo.com>


> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>=20
> You've provided no evidence that this is a bad plan.
>=20

Looks like I didn't take the time to understand properly what the explains =
were showing.

> In particular, the plan you seem to think would be better
> would involve
> an estimated 153 iterations of the cost-15071 hash
> aggregation, which
> simple arithmetic shows is more expensive than the plan it
> did choose.
>=20

I'd totally missed that all the cost was in the view that I'd created.

Thanks tom=0A=0A=0A