Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B659FB2F4 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:34:53 -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 41647-06 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:34:50 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26BC09FB2DC for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:34:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 12431 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2006 16:45:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:45:34 -0500 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Tobias Brox Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" , Chris Browne , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly? Message-ID: <20061010164534.GA11843@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III , Tobias Brox , "Jim C. Nasby" , Chris Browne , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20061009213303.GA19144@oppetid.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061009213303.GA19144@oppetid.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.047 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/193 X-Sequence-Number: 21322 On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 23:33:03 +0200, Tobias Brox wrote: > > Just a comment from the side line; can't the rough "set > enable_seqscan=off" be considered as sort of a hint anyway? There have > been situations where we've actually had to resort to such crud. That only works for simple queries. To be generally useful, you want to be able to hint how to handle each join being done in the query. The current controlls affect all joins.