Re: [GENERAL] Query too slow with "not in" condition

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM, David Rowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You might find this page interesting: > http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2008/08/13/nulls-vs-not-in/ > > Thanks David. Another issue I was faced with was exactly what the link you provided discusses. Best regards, Ma Sivak

Re: [GENERAL] Query too slow with "not in" condition [Resolved]

Thanks a lot. On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "David Rowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I assume workmem, effective_cache_size and random_page_cost are all the > same > > in the 2 postgresql.conf? > > Indeed, work_mem is probably the problem. The crit

Re: [GENERAL] Query too slow with "not in" condition

"David Rowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I assume workmem, effective_cache_size and random_page_cost are all the same > in the 2 postgresql.conf? Indeed, work_mem is probably the problem. The critical difference between the two plans seems to be that the first one is using a "hashed subplan"

Re: [GENERAL] Query too slow with "not in" condition

> I have loaded the backup from a live database in a test system. Both run > 8.3.5 versions. The plan for a query varies in these systems. > Test System > A. PostgreSQL 8.3.5 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 > 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) > B. explain select * from stoc

[GENERAL] Query too slow with "not in" condition

Dear Friends, I have loaded the backup from a live database in a test system. Both run 8.3.5 versions. The plan for a query varies in these systems. Test System A. PostgreSQL 8.3.5 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) B. explain select * from s