On 2013-05-10 10:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Larry Rosenman <ler@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: On 2013-05-10 09:14, Tom Lane wrote: ... and verify you get a cheap plan for each referencing table. We don't :( Ugh. I bet the problem is that in some of these tables, there are lots and lots of duplicate account ids, such that seqscans look like a good bet when searching for an otherwise-unknown id. You don't see this with a handwritten test for a specific id because then the planner can see it's not any of the common values. 9.2 would fix this for you --- any chance of updating? regards, tom lane
I'll see what we can do. I was looking for a reason, this may be it. Thanks for all your help. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: ler@xxxxxxxxxx US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
