Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer <rm_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> There's something fishy about this --- given that that plan has a lower >>> cost estimate, it should've picked it without any artificial >>> constraints. One final thing I find curious about this is that the estimated number of rows is much closer in the "offset 0" form of the query. Since the logic itself is identical, I would have expected the estimated total number of rows for both forms of this query to be identical. Any reason the two plans estimate a different total number of rows? (explain statements for the two forms of the same query from earlier in the thread here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-12/msg00088.php ) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
