Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFB1475458 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:14:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D28347657B for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0LFEW5u002150; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl=20Guti=E9rrez=20S=E1nchez?= Cc: PgSql-SQL Mailing List Subject: Re: Speed depending of Join Order. In-reply-to: <3E2D3467.BEA05FE9@laeff.esa.es> References: <3E2D3467.BEA05FE9@laeff.esa.es> Comments: In-reply-to =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl=20Guti=E9rrez=20S=E1nchez?= message dated "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:52:07 +0100" Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:14:32 -0500 Message-ID: <2149.1043162072@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/320 X-Sequence-Number: 11185 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl=20Guti=E9rrez=20S=E1nchez?= writes: > Note that the only difference is the order of the join elements. Using > version 7.2.2, which I have been using untill now, the time expended in > both of them was the same, using the right indexes. However, using > version 7.3.1 which I have instaled recently, the results of the explain > are the following: That seems like a bug. Are the tables small enough that you could send me a pg_dump of them? I doubt I can reproduce this without the specific test case. regards, tom lane