X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C7911F6629 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:20:44 -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 79090-06 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:20:35 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05BA11F660E for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:20:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3PIKTGp022919; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:20:29 -0400 (EDT) To: PFC cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Slow queries salad ;) In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to PFC message dated "Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:53:15 +0200" Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:20:29 -0400 Message-ID: <22918.1145989229@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/560 X-Sequence-Number: 18644 PFC writes: > The IN() is quite small (150 values), but the two large tables are > seq-scanned... is there a way to avoid this ? Not in 8.1. HEAD is a bit smarter about joins to Append relations. regards, tom lane