From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@leapfrogonline.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4 tree
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:09:28 -0400
Message-ID: <9119.1150222168@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448EB053.8F27.00A9.0@leapfrogonline.com>
References: <448EB053.8F27.00A9.0@leapfrogonline.com>
"Shaun Thomas" <sthomas@leapfrogonline.com> writes:
> Am I correct in assuming this terrible plan is due to our ancient
> version of Postgres?
I missed the part where you explain why you think this plan is terrible?
412ms for what seems a rather expensive query doesn't sound so awful.
Do you know an alternative that is better?
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sthomas@leapfrogonline.com
Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4 tree
In-Reply-To: <9119.1150222168@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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