Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <zawadaa@wp.pl>) id 1TLFyQ-0004JT-2C
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:14:30 +0000
Received: from mx4.wp.pl ([212.77.101.8])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <zawadaa@wp.pl>) id 1TLFyO-0004wW-9x
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:14:29 +0000
Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.wp.pl 29936 invoked from network);
	8 Oct 2012 18:14:26 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wp.pl; s=1024a;
	t=1349712866; bh=tk10lWe+t25nJHWh2xvAUnRotwRBC1oL4jkhLvNq1K0=;
	h=From:To:Subject;
	b=C4bIVLdgC37HABmb+sr5g65brzVEhiTjSEDASjHxfF/uBkBTgljc3OrkRtpxWB1k/
	xPVR0NqoqvCtj2LskO3BEUfbwtTWBRDcszuU/Bn2RrfFCVyckegJ2zmkxRpnF0xnkc
	CZeP5a+V042jUpj7JvLxbBezrp1Ddp9RcxG4J0A4=
Received: from bramka-zew.dfqs.pl (HELO [192.168.20.69])
	(zawadaa@[194.126.222.22]) (envelope-sender <zawadaa@wp.pl>)
	by smtp.wp.pl (WP-SMTPD) with CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted SMTP
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>; 8 Oct 2012 18:14:26 +0200
Message-ID: <5072FBE1.6010700@wp.pl>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:14:25 +0200
From: Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@wp.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120829 Icedove/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Strange behavior after upgrade from 9.0 to 9.2
References: <50728C3E.9050904@wp.pl> <1077.1349707951@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<5072F41D.5010202@wp.pl> <2490.1349711787@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <2490.1349711787@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy poczty Wirtualnej Polski S. A.
X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [cVMk]                               
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----)
X-Archive-Number: 201210/50
X-Sequence-Number: 48009

On 08.10.2012 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@wp.pl> writes:
>> On 08.10.2012 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> [ counts... ]  You've got nine base relations in that query.  I think
>>> you need to increase from_collapse_limit and/or join_collapse_limit.
>> Bingo! Thank you!
>> But... looks like in 9.0 this worked differently or option was skipped?
>> Because I had default settings of that options and query has worked fine.
> It looks like 9.0 wasn't flattening the EXISTS subqueries, so those
> tables didn't count as relations of the main query.
Thanks for explanation.
Looks like now I can switch to 9.2.1 on production server. :-)


-- 
Andrzej Zawadzki