Re: Accounting for between table correlation
| От | Michael Lewis |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Accounting for between table correlation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHOFxGrwYK41=e0BESL0ZNRvebZCe8ZKm+ZNkie5zz+64FgOxQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Accounting for between table correlation (Alexander Stoddard <alexander.stoddard@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Accounting for between table correlation
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:27 PM Alexander Stoddard <alexander.stoddard@gmail.com> wrote:
The queries are complex, multiple joins to 10 plus tables, although most are to tiny enum type lookup tables. I believe it is the join between the two large tables that I have described that causes the issue, and that seems to be reflected in the different strategies in the plans. For my own learning and to clarify the problem I probably will have to try and reproduce the behavior in a test case....I am doing nothing to specify the optimizer. Do I have configurable options in that regard? I was unaware of them.
Read up on join_collapse_limit and geqo.
Note that you can set these values within your session to check and even just run explain [query] to check if the plan that would be used varies.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: