X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F149DC879 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:37:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21605-04 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:37:42 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2FC9DC81A for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:37:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1C0bbkS000745; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:37:37 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Bryce Nesbitt Subject: Re: Very slow updates when using IN syntax subselect In-reply-to: <200602112134.57572.peter_e@gmx.net> References: <43ECFF0B.80905@obviously.com> <7972.1139672862@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43EE3F77.6020108@obviously.com> <200602112134.57572.peter_e@gmx.net> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:34:57 +0100" Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:37:37 -0500 Message-ID: <744.1139704657@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109] X-Spam-Score: 0.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/127 X-Sequence-Number: 24137 Peter Eisentraut writes: > Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >> They occur in fine time. That's good, thanks. But jeeze, can't >> postgres figure this out for itself? > I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if PostgreSQL did a full table scan > before each query to figure out the total size of the involved tables. It's also less than polite to complain about the behavior of two-year-old releases, without making any effort to ascertain whether more-current versions are smarter. regards, tom lane