X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6839474E42
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (unknown [209.10.40.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1478474E42
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:01:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO spooky)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2)
	with ESMTP id 2982479; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:01:05 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: <mallah@trade-india.com>, <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Why is seq search preferred here by planner?
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:00:20 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <1220.219.65.235.51.1051114881.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
In-Reply-To: <1220.219.65.235.51.1051114881.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <200304231000.20578.josh@agliodbs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-31.6 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_10,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_KMAIL autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200304/326
X-Sequence-Number: 13027

Mallah,

> UPDATE email_bank set country=3Dpersonal_account_details.country where us=
erid
> > 0 and userid=3Dpersonal_account_details.userid  ;

While Postgres is letting you "fudge", you are missing part of that SQL=20
statement.  It should be:

 UPDATE email_bank set country=3Dpersonal_account_details.country
 FROM personal_account_details
 where userid > 0 and userid=3Dpersonal_account_details.userid  ;

> tradein_clients=3D# begin work;explain analyze UPDATE email_bank set
> country=3Dpersonal_account_details.country where userid > 0 and
> userid=3Dpersonal_account_details.userid  ;BEGIN
> Time: 669.57 ms

Hmmm ... 669 ms seems pretty speedy for updating 150,000 rows.   What's the=
=20
problem?

--=20
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco