Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1C49FB20D
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:05:19 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87880-06 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:05:16 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from lynet.oppetid.no (oppetid.no [80.65.51.2])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388B89FB1E6
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:05:16 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by lynet.oppetid.no (Postfix, from userid 1019)
	id 37AF711AFA2; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:05:12 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:05:12 +0200
From: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
Cc: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Merge Join vs Nested Loop
Message-ID: <20060927150512.GE17834@oppetid.no>
References: <20060926193553.GA27268@oppetid.no> <719.1159308596@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20060927094803.GA11245@oppetid.no>
	<1159369111.4643.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1159369111.4643.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Organization: Group Nordicbet
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.185 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200609/352
X-Sequence-Number: 21038

[Scott Marlowe - Wed at 09:58:30AM -0500]
> Have you tried chaning the cpu_* cost options to see how they affect
> merge versus nested loop?

As said in the original post, increasing any of them shifts the planner
towards nested loops instead of merge_join.  I didn't check which one of
the cost constants made the most impact.