X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B6D9DC84B for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:15:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46874-06 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:15:17 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from moonunit2.moonview.localnet (wsip-68-15-5-150.sd.sd.cox.net [68.15.5.150]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFF59DC820 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:15:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (moonunit3.moonview.localnet [192.168.0.3]) by moonunit2.moonview.localnet (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBG3FRfF025815 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:27 -0800 Message-ID: <43A23079.8060307@modgraph-usa.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:11:53 -0800 From: "Craig A. James" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Overriding the optimizer References: <200512141603.52583.blargity@gmail.com> <7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1134629567.14248.27.camel@firebolt> <200512150148.16125.blargity@gmail.com> <1134644526.14248.60.camel@firebolt> <43A1C40D.8040006@paradise.net.nz> <43A1F6DB.3080805@modgraph-usa.com> <43A21D74.8030002@familyhealth.com.au> <43A2203B.2050102@familyhealth.com.au> <43A2251A.60907@modgraph-usa.com> <43A227BE.9030106@familyhealth.com.au> In-Reply-To: <43A227BE.9030106@familyhealth.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.027 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027] X-Spam-Score: 0.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/375 X-Sequence-Number: 16196 Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Can you paste explain analyze and your effective_cache_size, etc. settings. > ... > This seems like a case where PostgreSQL's current optimiser should > easily know what to do if your config settings are correct and you've > been running ANALYZE, so I'd like to see your settings and the explain > analyze plan... I could, but it would divert us from the main topic of this discussion. It's not about that query, which was just an example. It's the larger issue. Tom's earlier response tells the story better than I can: > This discussion has been had before (many times) ... see > the -hackers archives for detailed arguments. If it's "been had before (many times)", and now I'm bringing it up again, then it's clearly an ongoing problem that hasn't been resolved. Craig