Thanks for reply, sir.
On 11/21/2016 1:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Man <man.tr...@gmail.com> writes:
Additional information.
In 9.6 the second table (lesser tuple) was choosen (the same testdata).
There are something (cost estimation?) different in previous versions.
I'd bet on different statistics in the two installations (either you
forgot to ANALYZE, or the random sample came up quite a bit different).
And I'm a little suspicious that these tests weren't all done with the
same work_mem setting.
I dumped the two tables in pg9.4 and restored to pg9.6, sir.
I also set default_statistics_target to 1000 and ANALYZE d two tables in
both installations.
And so that were result.
Anyway i know that order can not change by tuning parameters because it
depend on storing data, thanks.
regards, tom lane
Thanks and best regards,
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
