On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:24:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd not been thinking of that change as something we'd risk > back-patching, but maybe we should consider putting it into 9.2. It > seems like the index-only scan support has put a new level of premium on > the quality of the planner's rowcount estimates. Yes, please do! It's that or we globally disable index-only scans, which I'd prefer not to do. Let me know if you'd like me to test a patch, I can apply it and see if it fixes our issue at hand. > Meanwhile, that range condition in itself looks a tad, er, klugy. > Do you really need that, or is this a crummy way of stating > foobar.id = m.id? No, it's really needed. That's merely the tip of the kluginess; don't get me started! The dangers of an organically grown schema. :) This thing has been growing since Postgres v6. (Looking back at how far Postgres has come from 6.x to 9.2 is truly awe-inspiring) -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8
Attachment:
pgpn1hs4buCyB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
