On 3/4/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:42 AM, in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Kratz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, I've now been asked to ping the list as to whether turning off
> >> nested loo
On 3/4/08, Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:42 AM, in message
> > Any other thoughts or suggestions?
>
>
> Make sure your effective_cache_size is properly configured.
>
> Increase random_page_cost and/or decrease seq_page_cost.
> You can play with the cost
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:42 AM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Kratz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, I've now been asked to ping the list as to whether turning off
>> nested loops system wide is a bad idea, and why or why not.
> In o
>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:42 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Kratz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I've now been asked to ping the list as to whether turning off
> nested loops system wide is a bad idea, and why or why not.
In our environment, the fastest plan for a lot of que
Hello Everyone,
I had posted an issue previously that we've been unable to resolve.
An early mis-estimation in one or more subqueries causes the remainder
of the query to choose nested loops instead of a more efficient method
and runs very slowly (CPU Bound). I don't think there is any wa
