Tom Raney wrote:
> >> RELOPTINFO (tenk1): rows=1 width=244
> >> path list:
> >> SeqScan(tenk1) rows=1 cost=0.00..434.00
> >> IdxScan(tenk1) rows=1 cost=0.00..583.25
> >>pathkeys: ((tenk1.unique2, onek.unique2)) <---
> >
> >> cheapest sta
Tom Lane wrote:
Tom Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why does the index scan for tenk1 include a path key from
onek.unique2? Is it implying an equivalence there?
bench=# explain select * from tenk1 JOIN onek ON
tenk1.unique2=onek.unique2;
Yes, for an example like that the planner knows th
Tom Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does the index scan for tenk1 include a path key from
> onek.unique2? Is it implying an equivalence there?
> bench=# explain select * from tenk1 JOIN onek ON
> tenk1.unique2=onek.unique2;
Yes, for an example like that the planner knows that tenk1.uni
Tom Lane wrote:
Tom Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why does the planner consider both input variations of each symmetric merge join? The
README says "there is not a lot of difference" between the two options. When
are there any differences?
The righthand side needs to support mark/resto
Tom Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does the planner consider both input variations of each symmetric merge
> join? The README says "there is not a lot of difference" between the two
> options. When are there any differences?
The righthand side needs to support mark/restore, the left d
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 11:21 -0700, Tom Raney wrote:
> Why does the planner consider both input variations of each symmetric merge
> join? The README says "there is not a lot of difference" between the two
> options. When are there any differences?
>
> -Tom Raney
>
http://archives.postgresql.
Why does the planner consider both input variations of each symmetric merge join? The
README says "there is not a lot of difference" between the two options. When
are there any differences?
-Tom Raney
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
Tom Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My question is: How would I let the planner know when a planner session
> has been invoked by the "explain" command? If I can slip a flag into
> PlannerInfo or PlannerGlobal, that would be perfect. But, I'm a bit
> stuck on how to get explain context to
I've been working on a client application (based on the Red Hat Visual
Explain tool) to display all plans the planner considers graphically and
it does that. But, the trace functionality in the planner is always on
(and thus, taking up cycles and resources) whether or not it is
requested by th
