Re: Problem with collector statistic
"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Marco_Aur=E9lio_V._da_Silva?=" <marcoprodata@gmail.com> writes:
Running a query on 2 database-equal, with the same indices, but with
slightly different data, I have a very different result of performance. In
one the index is used to make the join, in another it is seqscan.
The fact that one explain includes a Limit step, and the other does not,
says that you are not really issuing the same query in both cases.
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 010e01c84266$ae0eebd0$0402a8c0@marquinhoReference msg id not found: 010e01c84266$ae0eebd0$0402a8c0@marquinho
Marco Aurélio V. da Silva <marcoprodata@gmail.com> writes:
Select a.CodPagador,b.Descricao
From Frete01 a Left Outer Join Frete02 b On (a.CodPagador = b.CodCliente)explain in good dabatase:
"Limit (cost=0.00..46856.62 rows=55204 width=39) (actual
time=11.205..536.761 rows=55204 loops=1)"
That doesn't match the query you describe. Notably there's no LIMIT in the
query (or the other plan)
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 010e01c84266$ae0eebd0$0402a8c0@marquinhoReference msg id not found: 010e01c84266$ae0eebd0$0402a8c0@marquinho | Resolved by subject fallback