Say42 wrote: > Perhaps I am wrong but I assume normalization is a usual case, small > master (parent) tables are not very rare also. > Yes, my example is unusual but it is _real_ and demonstrate PG > optimizer inaccuracy. Why don't we make PG optimizer more close to > reality if we can? Is it so needless and I make a mountain out of a > molehill?
All you have shown so far is that one particular query runs faster on your machine when sequential scans are turned off. That is certainly a problem that is worth addressing. But you haven't offered any analysis about the cause of this problem, so any speculation about normalization, usual cases, caching effects and so on are unfounded and premature. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
