Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower... - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
Date
Msg-id 18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>)
Responses Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>)
Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>)
List pgsql-performance
Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr> writes:
> On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
>> when the actual join size is zero.  Are both tables ANALYZEd?  Are you
>> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?

> Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly
> selecting rows taht have no join partners?

I'm wondering why the actual join size is zero.  That seems like a
rather unexpected case for a query like this.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: lars
Date:
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
Next
From: lars
Date:
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database