>I'm curious to see if Aaron can test his structure on 9.3 with the
>original data and WHERE clause and see if the planner still goes for
>the
>terrible plan. If it does, that would seem like an obvious planner
>tweak
>to me.
I will try to spin up a test 9.3 db and run the same queries to se
>The PK of the master table and the PK of the detail table cannot be
>the same thing, or they would not have a master-detail relationship.
>One side has to be an FK, not a PK.
>
Of course this is correct. I was trying to make the point that there should be
unique indices (of whatever flavor PG
Will get what you asked for ASAP. Thanks for your time.
--
Aaron
On June 25, 2014 5:55:29 PM EDT, Shaun Thomas wrote:
>On 06/25/2014 04:40 PM, Aaron Weber wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, I guess I wasn't clear about some other particulars
>> The query's where clause
I will gather the other data tonight. Thank you.
In the meantime, I guess I wasn't clear about some other particulars
The query's where clause is only an "IN", with a list of id's (those I
mentioned are the PK), and the join is explicitly on the PK (so, indexed).
Thus, there should be only th
