From: Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:57:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4E1CDF52.4020208@megafon.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4E1C8E62.2090800@megafon.hr>
<4626.1310501052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4E1CC576.2080200@megafon.hr>
<18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 07/13/2011 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Splivalo<mario.splivalo@megafon.hr> writes:
>> On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
>>> when the actual join size is zero. Are both tables ANALYZEd? Are you
>>> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?
>
>> Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly
>> selecting rows taht have no join partners?
>
> I'm wondering why the actual join size is zero. That seems like a
> rather unexpected case for a query like this.
It is true that this particular query returns 0 rows. But it's created
by django, and I can't do much to alter it.
Mario
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mario.splivalo@megafon.hr, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
In-Reply-To: <4E1CDF52.4020208@megafon.hr>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox