Claudio Freire wrote: > Selectivity is decided based on the number of distinct values on > both sides, and the table's name "entity" makes me think it's a > table that is reused for several things. That could be a problem, > since that inflates distinct values, feeding misinformation to > the planner. > > Rather than a generic "entity" table, perhaps it would be best to > separate them different entities into different tables. I missed that; good catch. Good advice. Don't try to build a "database within a database" by having one table for different types of data, with a code to sort them out. EAV is a seriously bad approach for every situation where I've seen someone try to use it. I was about to say it's like trying to drive a nail with a pipe wrench, then realized it's more like putting a bunch of hammers in a bag and swinging the bag at the nail. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
