Kevin Traster writes:
> Unique (cost=3506.21..303375872.86 rows=71946 width=8)
>-> Index Scan using cik_ciknum_idx on cik (cost=3506.21..303375616.75
> rows=102444 width=8)
> Filter: (NOT (subplan))
> SubPlan
>-> Materialize (cost=3506.21..6002.40 rows=18601
Kevin Traster writes:
> Regarding the previous posts about the same issues of PERFORMENCE between
> NOT IN versus EXCEPT. There has not been any answer to explain it - just
> talk about the differenences between the two results.
>
> Yes, I can still get the results using EXCEPT but it would be ni
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Kevin Traster wrote:
> > 2 questions:
> >
> > 1) Different costs for same actions. Doing an explain on 2 nearly
> identical
> > queries both involving the same Index scan on same table has 2 widely
> > diff
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Kevin Traster wrote:
> > 2 questions:
> >
> > 1) Different costs for same actions. Doing an explain on 2 nearly
> identical
> > queries both involving the same Index scan on same table has 2 widely
> > diff
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Kevin Traster wrote:
> 2 questions:
>
> 1) Different costs for same actions. Doing an explain on 2 nearly identical
> queries both involving the same Index scan on same table has 2 widely
> different costs for same Index scan 303375872.86 vs. 12576.70
Pretty sur
2 questions:
1) Different costs for same actions. Doing an explain on 2 nearly identical
queries both involving the same Index scan on same table has 2 widely
different costs for same Index scan 303375872.86 vs. 12576.70
2) Simple query using NOT IN (subquery)was killed after 2 hrs, using the
sa
