Sami Dalouche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, the version of postgres I use is :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Desktop $ dpkg -l | grep postgres
> ii postgresql-8.2 8.2.5-1.1
OK. I think you have run afoul of a bug that was introduced in 8.2.5
that causes it not to realize
Hi,
Sorry for not giving enough information.. I didn't want to pollute you
with too much detail...
So, the version of postgres I use is :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Desktop $ dpkg -l | grep postgres
ii postgresql-8.2 8.2.5-1.1
object-relational SQL database, version 8.2
ii
Sami Dalouche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what could prevent postgrs from using the index ?
You've carefully withheld all the details that might let us guess.
If I had to guess anyway, I'd guess this is a pre-8.2 PG release
that doesn't know how to rearrange outer joins, but there are any
nu
Hi,
I have a query that uses left outer join, and this seems to prevent the
index on the right column to be used.
I couldn't really trim down the query without having the index used
normally..
So, I have the following tables that join :
Offer -> AdCreatedEvent -> Account -> ContactInformation
Nimesh Satam wrote:
> Following is the full plan of the query using partition. Let me know if you
> need any further information.
What indexes are there on the table partitions? You didn't post the
query, but it looks like your doing a join between rpt_network and the
partitioned table. An index o
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 12:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I agree its annoying and I have a way of doing this, but that's an 8.4
> > thing now.
>
> It was an 8.4 thing quite some time ago, since no working patch was ever
> submitted.
Sorry, I meant that the
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree its annoying and I have a way of doing this, but that's an 8.4
> thing now.
It was an 8.4 thing quite some time ago, since no working patch was ever
submitted.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast
Nimesh Satam wrote:
> We are trying to implement partition on one tables on date basis. the
> overall cost and timming and cost of the query is increasing on the Append
> of the child table output. As shown below:
>
> *-> Append (cost=0.00..112217.92 rows=2752906 width=52) (actual time=
> 2454.2
All,
We are trying to implement partition on one tables on date basis. the
overall cost and timming and cost of the query is increasing on the Append
of the child table output. As shown below:
*-> Append (cost=0.00..112217.92 rows=2752906 width=52) (actual time=
2454.207..20712.021 rows=2752905
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 17:48 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Works great - plans no longer sort, but rather use indices as
> expected. It's in use in Greenplum now.
>
> It's a simple approach, should easily extend from gpdb to postgres.
> The patch is against gpdb so someone needs to 'port' it.
The
10 matches
Mail list logo
