>>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI, I retested my queries on REL8_3_STABLE and the results were not > all that different from CVS HEAD. So the problem is apparently > specific to something your query is doing that mine isn't., rather > than a general slowdown in planning (or else one of us goofed up the > testing). I know you said size doesn't matter, but just for the record, the ten tables I loaded for this test put the database at 56G. I'm pulling information together to share on this, but I was wondering: is there any possibility that the tendency to use index scans in nested loops (given the table sizes and the availability of useful indexes) contributes to the difference? Other possible factors: Most keys are multi-column and include varchar-based data types. Most columns are defined via domains. (More info to follow.) -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
