From: Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Simple Join
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:12:56 -0600
Message-ID: <200512141712.56919.blargity@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200512141603.52583.blargity@gmail.com>
<7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:47, you wrote:
> Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm running 8.1 installed from source on a Debian Sarge server. I have a
> > simple query that I believe I've placed the indexes correctly for, and I
> > still end up with a seq scan. It makes sense, kinda, but it should be
> > able to use the index to gather the right values.
>
> I continue to marvel at how many people think that if it's not using an
> index it must ipso facto be a bad plan ...
>
> That plan looks perfectly fine to me. You could try forcing some other
> choices by fooling with the planner enable switches (eg set
> enable_seqscan = off) but I doubt you'll find much improvement. There
> are too many rows being pulled from ordered_products to make an index
> nestloop a good idea.
That's fine, so being a postgres novice, as I stated in my original post, what
would be the best way to improve performance? Redundant column that's
updated via a trigger? I'm asking this list because I'd like to do it right,
as opposed to get it done.
> 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: blargity@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Simple Join
In-Reply-To: <200512141712.56919.blargity@gmail.com>
* 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