Message-ID: <513F3250.2050208@optionshouse.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:49:04 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Slow query when used in a view
References: <513E5AB9.4010809@optionshouse.com>
 <1454.1363046219@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1454.1363046219@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> And that means that you get the inefficient plan wherein the
> foo-to-tiny_foo join is computed in its entirety.

:(

That's unfortunate, though I guess it makes sense. I moved the join in 
the view into the SELECT clause as an EXISTS, and that seems to work 
without major adverse effects. Apparently the tiny table really will be 
tiny in actual use, so impact should be minimal.

I just really don't like using subselects that way. :)

Thanks, Tom!

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance