Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
Date: ,
Msg-id: 18737.1310510362@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo)
Responses: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo)
Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...  (Mario Splivalo)
List: pgsql-performance


Mario Splivalo <> 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:

From: Lars
Date:
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database