Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FC0B5DBE0
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 25 May 2011 11:13:32 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 52595-02 for
	<pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 25 May 2011 14:13:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FCDB5DBDA
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 25 May 2011 11:13:25 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p4PEDLMY004885;
	Wed, 25 May 2011 10:13:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Jasmin Dizdarevic <jasmin.dizdarevic@gmail.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance of NOT IN and <> with PG 9.0.4 
In-reply-to: <BANLkTin1TRna9JDL9se+j7ROdaATXSqP+A@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <BANLkTimo9PG9r+pP-wxT=Amk79G_UmtCwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD10533.7050904@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<BANLkTi=GmO5NaTGb80e7LpX8mRcvPyKucg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinp_jkY5mpruP8JkTekpDKMkjovyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim_EvVzTzzbbOhmDQGPMUoc0fNLFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=X8CBCF_mx4SEp1Wh3b2Gn6vS_mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTin1TRna9JDL9se+j7ROdaATXSqP+A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 24 May 2011 15:49:06 -0400"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:13:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4884.1306332801@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201105/154
X-Sequence-Number: 35438

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
> <jasmin.dizdarevic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> enable_material = off

> Is there any chance you can reproduce this with a simpler test case
> that doesn't involve quite so many joins?

I didn't stop to count, but are there enough that join_collapse_limit
or from_collapse_limit could be in play?

			regards, tom lane