Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:48:40 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Optimizing a huge_table/tiny_table join
Message-ID: <20060525164840.GA2954@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <200605251631.k4PGV4O28645@panix3.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200605251631.k4PGV4O28645@panix3.panix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:31:04PM -0400, kynn@panix.com wrote:
> Well, they're not my statistics; they're explain's.  You mean there's

Explain doesn't get them from nowhere.  How often is the table being
ANALYSEd?

> More bewildering still (and infuriating as hell--because it means that
> all of my work for yesterday has been wasted) is that I can no longer
> reproduce the best query plan I posted earlier, even though the tables
> have not changed at all.  (Hence I can't post the explain analyze for

I find that very hard to believe.  Didn't change _at all_?  Are you
sure no VACUUMs or anything are happening automatically?

> Anyway, I take it that there is no way to bypass the optimizer and
> instruct PostgreSQL exactly how one wants the search performed?

No, there isn't.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
		--Philip Greenspun