X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2231B43168 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:23:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93094-09 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:23:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C12B43164 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:23:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h64ENOQQ015395; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:23:24 -0400 (EDT) To: Rod Taylor Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in, Postgresql Performance Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL In-reply-to: <1057326329.40425.1.camel@jester> References: <200307041823.40101.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in> <3F05CC6B.23813.161542@localhost> <1057326329.40425.1.camel@jester> Comments: In-reply-to Rod Taylor message dated "04 Jul 2003 09:45:30 -0400" Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:23:24 -0400 Message-ID: <15394.1057328604@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200307/63 X-Sequence-Number: 2356 Rod Taylor writes: >> It was bit too vague to be a comfortable DB tuning problem. > Completely too little information, and it stopped with Tom asking for > additional information. There was something awfully fishy about that. Brian was saying that he got a seqscan plan out of "WHERE foo = 100", where foo is an integer primary key. That's just not real credible, at least not once you get past the couple of standard issues that were mentioned in the thread. And we never did get word one of information about his join problems. > I don't think Brian has any interest in being helped. I suspect he'd made up his mind already. Which is his privilege, but it'd be nice to have some clue what the problem was ... regards, tom lane