From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:39:22 -0400
Message-ID: <18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E1CC576.2080200@megafon.hr>
References: <4E1C8E62.2090800@megafon.hr>
<4626.1310501052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4E1CC576.2080200@megafon.hr>
Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr> writes:
> On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
>> when the actual join size is zero. Are both tables ANALYZEd? Are you
>> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?
> Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly
> selecting rows taht have no join partners?
I'm wondering why the actual join size is zero. That seems like a
rather unexpected case for a query like this.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mario.splivalo@megafon.hr
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
In-Reply-To: <18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox