X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741269DC817 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:47:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30485-04 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:47:19 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F349DC809 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:47:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0AFksFu000153; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:46:54 -0500 (EST) To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Greg Stark , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: NOT LIKE much faster than LIKE? In-reply-to: <20060110152720.GL15897@opteron.random> References: <20060110014447.GB18474@opteron.random> <24021.1136858688@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060110022303.GA20168@opteron.random> <24372.1136861684@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060110034721.GC20168@opteron.random> <87y81oyv6x.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> <20060110152720.GL15897@opteron.random> Comments: In-reply-to Andrea Arcangeli message dated "Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:27:20 +0100" Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:46:53 -0500 Message-ID: <152.1136908013@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.078 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078] X-Spam-Score: 0.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/90 X-Sequence-Number: 16568 Andrea Arcangeli writes: > There's only one preempt near the end, not sure if it would work? Not with that data, but maybe if you increased the statistics target for the column to 100 or so, you'd catch enough values to get reasonable results. regards, tom lane