Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700111337B82 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 02:31:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55607-03 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 05:30:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sam.nabble.com (sam.nabble.com [216.139.236.26]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F9E1337A5D for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 02:30:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHUfq-0003Qp-9Y for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 22:30:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 22:30:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Rishabh Kumar Jain To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: <1304487058290-4369093.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB95E82.20904@enterprisedb.com> References: <361406.75324.qm@web137010.mail.in.yahoo.com> <4DB95E82.20904@enterprisedb.com> Subject: Re: Order of tables MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.864 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=1.63, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01, URI_HEX=1.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201105/43 X-Sequence-Number: 43552 Heikki Linnakangas-3 wrote: > > On 28.04.2011 12:20, Rishabh Kumar Jain wrote: >> How the tables must be ordered in the list of tables in from statement? > > There is no difference in performance, if that's what you mean. (If not, > then pgsql-novice or pgsql-sql mailing list would've be more appropriate) > > -- > Heikki Linnakangas > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > I understood that now but I have one more query. In what manner are explicit joins added to improve performence? Are there some rules for it? -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Order-of-tables-tp4346077p4369093.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.